Skip to main content

Full text of "The Mr. and Mrs. Edward Carter Collection of Dutch Paintings"

See other formats



Hendrick Avercamp 

Gerrit Adriaensz. Berckheyde 

Anthonie van Borssom 

Ambrosius Bosschaert the Elder 

JanDirksz. Both 

Dirck de Bray 

Jan van de Cappelle 

Pieter Claesz. 

Adriaen Coorte 
Aelbert Cuyp 
Jan van Goyen 
Willem Claesz. Heda 
Jan van der Hey den 
Meindert Hobbema 
Jan van Huysum 
Willem Kalf 
Philips Koninck 
Aert van derNeer 
Clara Peeters 
Jan Porcellis 
Frans Post 
Adam Pynacker 
Jacob Isaacksz. van Ruisdael 
and Nicolaes Pietersz. Berchem 
Jacob Isaacksz. van Ruisdael 
Salomon van Ruysdael 
Pieter Jansz. Saenredam 
Adriaen van de Velde 
Esaias van de Velde 
Willem van de Velde the Younger 
Willem van de Velde the Younger 
and workshop 
Simon de Vlieger 
Emanuel de Witte 

The Mr. and Mrs. 
Edward Carter 
of Dutch Paintings 

By Amy L. Walsh 

Technical Reports by Joseph Fro nek 

Infrared Reflectography Analysis by Elma O’Donoghue 

Edited by Leah Lehmbeck 

Los Angeles County Museum of Art 

The Mr. and Mrs. Edward Carter Collection 
of Dutch Paintings 

Published by the Los Angeles County Museum of Art 
5905 Wilshire Boulevard 
Los Angeles, California 90036 
(323) 857-6000 

Copyright © 2019 Museum Associates / Los Angeles County 
Museum of Art 


Ambrosius Bosschaert the Elder, 
Bouquet of Flowers on a Ledge , 1619 
(detail, cat. no. 4). Oil on copper, 

11 x 9 Vi 6 in. (27.9 x 23 cm). 

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward W. Carter 

PAGE 10 

Peter Jansz. Saenredam, Interior 
of the Sint-Mariakerk, Utrecht , 1651 
(detail, cat. no. 29). Oil on wood, 

19 Vs x 14 Vs in. (48.6 x 35.9 cm). 

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward W. Carter 


publisher Lisa Gabrielle Mark 
editor Kathleen Luhrs with Marjorie Schwartz 
rights and reproductions Carly Ann Rustebakke 
and Piper Severance 

designers Lorraine Wild and Xiaoqing Wang, 
with Tommy Huang, Green Dragon Office 
photography Peter Brenner, Steve Oliver, 
and Jonathan Urban 

proofreader Fronia W. Simpson 

This book is typeset in Lexicon N02 

PAGE 28 

Clara Peeters, Still Life with Cheeses , 
Artichoke , and Cherries , 1615 
(detail, cat. no. 21). Oil on wood, 

13 Vs x 18% in. (33.3 x 46.7 cm). 

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward W. Carter 

PAGE 237 

Willem Kalf, Still Life with a Porcelain 
Vase, Silver-gilt Ewer, and Glasses, 
ca. 1643 (detail, cat. no. 18). 

Oil on canvas, 21% x 17% in. 

(55.6 x 44.1 cm). Gift of Mr. and Mrs. 
Edward W. Carter (M.2009.106.22) 

contents _ Director’s Foreword Michael Govan 

Acknowledgments Amyl. Walsh 

An Unerring Eye Amyl. Walsh 

Note to the Reader: Technical Reports 

Joseph Fronek and Elma O’Donoghue 

Catalogue Entries Amyl. Walsh 

Technical Reports by Joseph Fronek 

Infrared Reflectography Analysis by Elma O’Donoghue 

Note to the Reader: How to Read Provenance 

Amyl. Walsh 

Photograph Credits 
Los Angeles County Museum of Art 
Board of Trustees, 2019 



A major force in driving the independent formation of the Los Angeles County 

Museum of Art (LACMA) in 1965 and the first president of its board of directors, 
Edward William Carter was also a deeply sensitive connoisseur. His interest in 
collecting seventeenth-century Dutch landscapes and still lifes of extraordinarily 
high quality resulted in a superb selection of quiet masterworks, largely unmatched in private 
hands. Together with his wife, Hannah, who was equally supportive of the museum, its 
goals, and its service to the public, he gifted the extraordinary collection they had assembled 
to LACMA in 2009. 

Published on the tenth anniversary of the Carters' historic gift, this catalogue offers new 
scholarship, supported by technical discoveries made by our conservation team, in celebration 
of an important group of European paintings from our encyclopedic collections. It is with 
great enthusiasm that we present this catalogue as part of our initiative to publish significant 
scholarly content about our permanent collection and to make it available online, easily 
accessible to scholars, connoisseurs, students, and the general public. It joins a catalogue of 
highlights from our South and Southeast Asian collection and our three-volume Gifts of 
European Art from TheAhmanson Foundation . 

The thirty-six paintings that make up the Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter collection 
comprise some of the best examples of seventeenth-century Dutch painting in the United 
States. Whether it is Hendrick Avercamp's festive scene of skaters on a frozen canal, Clara 
Peeters's exquisite still life, or Pieter Jansz. Saenredam's meditative interior of the Sint-Mariakerk 
in Utrecht, the paintings in the Carter collection also offer a personal reflection of the collectors 
and their tastes. The catalogue is a deep, scholarly consideration of an extraordinary group 
of paintings from the history of art and a marker of the importance of the public that both 
institution and donors have long committed to serve. 

Michael Govan 

CEO and Wallis Annenberg Director, Los Angeles County Museum of Art 


T his book celebrates Edward and Hannah Carter, who during the late twentieth 
century assembled one of the most admired and refined private collections 
of seventeenth-century Dutch paintings. The Carters' decision in the late 1960s to 
bequeath their collection to the Los Angeles County Museum of Art attests to their 
strong dedication to the museum they helped found and to Los Angeles and future genera¬ 
tions of museum visitors. For their commitment and generosity, we are tremendously grateful. 

I first met Mr. and Mrs. Carter when I was a young graduate student working in the 
Department of European Paintings at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. Handsome 
and elegant, they had just returned from Europe with a painting they were placing on 
temporary loan to the museum. Little did I know then that I would eventually move to Los 
Angeles, where many times I enjoyed the hospitality of the Carters, who warmly welcomed 
me and visiting scholars, collectors, and students into their home. It was my good fortune to 
be curator of European paintings at LACMA when their collection came to the museum. 

It has been a great honor and personal delight to write about the collection for a new catalogue 
to appear almost forty years after the publication of The Mirror of 'Nature, by my mentor, John 
Walsh, and Cynthia Schneider. That catalogue accompanied the enthusiastically reviewed 
exhibition of the Carter collection that traveled from LACMA to the Museum of Fine Arts, 
Boston and the Metropolitan Museum of Art. 

Many people and institutions have provided support and assistance in the completion of 
this book as it morphed through different formats to its final form. My thanks go first to 
the extended family of Hannah and Edward Carter, for their loving concern and interest in 
the collection, the donation of which they supported: Edward Carter's children, William B. 
Carter and Ulla; and the late Ann Carter Huneke; and Hannah Carter's children, Hannah 
“Haydi" C. Sowerwine and David; James E. Caldwell, Jr., and Philipa; Julie C. Tave and Alain; 
Anne Caldwell; and Jonathan Caldwell and Christine. 

Initial funding for cataloguing the northern European paintings at LACMA was pro¬ 
vided by a generous publication grant by the Getty Grant Program (now known as the Getty 
Foundation). The gift of the Carter collection prompted the decision to jettison the first idea— 
one book for all European paintings—and to divide the entries between separate publications, 
one for the Carter collection and one for the Ahmanson collection. An important addition to 
the Getty grant came from the Netherlands American Foundation. For his nomination for this 
grant I thank Matthew Le Clerc, the drawings collector and descendant of Haarlem burghers 
portrayed by Frans Hals. Stephanie Dyas and other members of the Development Department 
helped to secure and administer the grants. 

At LACMA I am grateful for the support of Michael Govan, CEO and Wallis Annenberg 
Director; Nancy Thomas, Deputy Director of Art Administration and Collections, who oversaw 
the original project; and Leah Lehmbeck, Curator and Department Head, European Painting 
and Sculpture, and American Art, who managed the final stages of publication. 

My greatest gratitude goes to my former colleagues in the Department of European 
Painting and Sculpture, especially J. Patrice Marandel, Curator Emeritus, for his confidence 
and support over many years and projects. His broad knowledge, experience, and connections 
are matched only by his great skills as a chef and host. It is a true privilege to have been 
his colleague and to be his friend. A very important part of the success of the Department of 
European Painting and Sculpture is due to Melissa Pope, Senior Curatorial Administrator. 
Smart, incredibly well organized, and great fun, Melissa took on many of the administrative 

needs of this project, including coordinating the movement of paintings within the museum 
and for loans. Diva Zumaya, Annenberg Fellow, Department of European Painting and 
Sculpture, has provided excellent support in the final stages of the project. 

For her attention to detail and her patience, I am enormously grateful to Kathleen Luhrs, 
who applied her years of experience editing catalogues for the Metropolitan Museum of Art 
and Morgan Library & Museum to the curatorial entries and often complicated conservation 
entries in this book. Our proofreader, Fronia W. Simpson, applied her exceptional skills to 
the final phase of this multiyear project to assure consistency throughout. Lisa Mark, Head of 
Publications at LACMA, and her staff have skillfully seen the book through to publication 
with the excellent help of Piper Severance. Carly Ann Rustebakke did a Herculean task of 
tracking down and securing the rights and images for the many related works. Peter Brenner 
and Steve Oliver in Photo Services provided beautiful new digital photography of the paint¬ 
ings in the Carter collection. 

The focused character of the Carter collection provided an opportunity to study the 
technical aspects of the paintings with Joseph Fronek, Senior Conservator of Paintings, 

Elma O'Donoghue, Conservator of Paintings, and former Conservation Scientists Charlotte 
Eng and the late Frank Preusser. Elma invented a clever camera stand to capture the infrared 
reflectography (IRR) images of paintings that Yosi Poseilov, Senior Photographer, Conservation, 
skillfully "wove” together into composite images. Other members of the Conservation 
Department, especially Virginia Rasmussen, Conservator, Paintings, and Silviu Boariu, 
Associate Conservator, Objects, added support and valuable input. Mark Gilberg, former Head 
of Conservation, oversaw the project, and Christel Quinn provided administrative support. 
Paul McKinney and Mario Lopez, under the direction of retired Head of Preparation, Jeff 
Haskin, facilitated the movement of the paintings between the galleries, conservation studio, 
and photo studio. My thanks to everyone for making the collaborative experience so reward¬ 
ing, both intellectually and personally. 

Research was greatly facilitated by the resources and people at numerous libraries. At 
LACMA, where The Ahmanson Foundation has for many years generously supported the 
library's acquisition of books, catalogues, and journals on European paintings and sculpture, 
making it a remarkably strong resource, I was aided by the cheerful and efficient assistance of 
the staff, especially Doug Cordel and Kristi Yuzuki, and former Program Specialist Tracy Kerr. 

I also greatly benefited from the rich resources of the Getty Research Institute (GRI). 

The collection of rare and recently published books, journals, sale and exhibition catalogues, 
and dealer archives, including those of Thos. Agnew, G. Cramer, Schaefer Galleries, Knoedler, 
and Duveen, and the extensive Collectors Files, were incredibly valuable. The staff of the GRI 
is without exception skilled, knowledgeable, and helpful. I am particularly grateful to the 
circulations staff, the staff of the Special Collections Reading Room, Provenance and History 
of Collecting, and the reference librarians, who have cheerfully provided guidance and 
assistance. Burton Fredericksen, retired Head of Provenance and History of Collecting, who 
planted the seed of what became the GRI and introduced the databases of sales, inventories, 
and public collections, deserves special recognition for his contributions to the resources of 
the GRI that have provided such a wealth of documentation for my research and that of others. 

Farther afield, I am grateful for the resources and staff of the Frick Art Reference Library, 
Avery Library and Special Collections of Columbia University, Watson Library and the Museum 
Archives of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Koninklijke Bibliotheek, The Hague, 
the Nationaal Archief, The Hague, and especially the RKD-Nederlands Instituut voor 


Kunstgeschiedinis, The Hague, where over the years I have enjoyed the friendship and 
benefited from the knowledge of many colleagues, past and present, including Sabine 
Craft-Giepmans, Charles Dumas, Michiel Franken, Marijke de Kinkelder, Suzanne Laemers, 
Fred Meijers, and Laurens Schoemaker. 

Many colleagues, scholars, dealers, students, docents, and visitors old and young have 
contributed to my knowledge through their publications, lectures, conversations, and insights. 
On more than one occasion I have been humbled by the observations of a child. There is, 

I have learned, much to know and always new ways of understanding the art of the past from 
different perspectives. 

I am grateful to all those who have inspired and informed me, including George Abrams, 
Gail Aronow, Katharine Baetjer, David Bomford, Christopher Brown, Edwin Buijsen, Quentin 
Buvelot, Fiona Carlin, Alan Chong, Elisabeth Donaghue, Frederik J. Duparc, Charles Dumas, 
Claudia Einecke, Paul Fields, Jeroen Giltaij, Emilie Gordenker, Liesbeth M. Helmus, Mark 
Henderson, Catherine Hess, Derek Johns, Casie Kesterson, the late Roz Leader, Matthew Le 
Clerc, Ad Leerintveld, the late Walter Liedtke, Bob Ling, Sally McKay, Norbert Middlekoop, 
David Miller, James Mitchell, Tom van der Molen, Rose-Marie and Eijk van Otterloo, Sander 
Parlberg, Ruud Priem, Peter Roeloffs, the late Mary Jane Rothe, Laurens Schoemaker, Gary 
Schwartz, Jan Six, Leonore van Sloten, Eric Jan Sluiter, Nicolette Sluiter-Seijfert, Anthony 
Speelman, Elisabeth Spits, Adriane van Suchtelen, Peter Sutton, Carol Togneri, Jane Turner, 
Diana Veach, Gerdien Verschoor, Christiaan Vogelaar, John Walsh, Arthur Wheelock, Lois 
White, Jeannine Wiest, John Willenbecher, Gloria Williams, and Ann Woolett. 

In addition to sharing professional correspondence and conversation, I have had the 
great pleasure of becoming friends with many of my colleagues, with whom I have shared 
meals and wonderful times. Among them are a special group who have welcomed me as 
a guest in their homes, given me a room and shared meals and their beloved cats with me. For 
their warm hospitality and kindness making me feel at home so many miles away from 
California, with a grateful heart I thank Norbert Middelkoop and Leonore van Sloten, and the 
notorious Lulu; Eric Jan and Nicolette Sluiter, and the late Mievis and Sophiekje; Gary and 
Loekie Schwartz and their chickens; and Cynthia van Bogendorf-Ruprath, her dogs, and now 
grown children Eric Jan and Caroline. On various research trips and related events in Boston 
and New York, I have had the pleasure of staying with old friends Margaret McNally 
and Jonathan Wacks in both Cambridge and New York; Amy Golahny in her family home in 
Boston; and Margaret Lawson in an apartment with a glorious view of the Hudson River. 
Thank you all for the warm beds and meals, but especially for your friendship and good cheer. 

Finally, but by no means least, I thank my family for their contributions to the success 
and completion of this book. My sister and brother-in-law, Jane Walsh-Brown and Jim Brown, 
incredibly accomplished in their own fields, are an inspiration both professionally and 
personally and always a joy to be with. To my daughter, Kate, who as a child once accompanied 
me and Edwin Buijsen to the Carters' house and is now a very successful professional, thank 
you for your loving support and patience. I never cease to be impressed by your wise insights 
into paintings and people. Most of all, I am grateful to you for including me so fully in the 
lives of your family, your wonderful, clever husband, Peter, and sons, Alexander and Theodore 
Scudese. Not to be forgotten, I acknowledge the important part played by my cats, Sebastian 
and the late Stella, who are ever present, sitting on my notes and keypad. 

This book is dedicated to Mr. and Mrs. Carter and their many contributions to LACMA, 
Los Angeles, and the State of California. May their example inspire future generations. 

Amy L. Walsh 


An Unerring Eye 

Amy L. Walsh nvisioned from its inception as a gift to the Los Angeles County Museum of Art 

Jj (LACMA), the collection of thirty-six seventeenth-century Dutch paintings 
M " assembled by Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter over a period of approximately 
twenty-five years came to the museum in 2009 following the death of Hannah 
Carter. The landscapes, still lifes, seascapes, cityscapes, and church interiors that are the focus 
of the collection are widely praised for their exceptional quality and condition. The gift stands 
as a memorial to an astute businessman and dedicated civic leader who made a unique contri¬ 
bution to the economic, cultural, and educational development of Los Angeles, and especially 
to the museum he helped build and led as the first president of its board of trustees. 

Edward Carter was born in Cumberland, Maryland, in 1911 and at the age of nine moved 
to Los Angeles with his mother and sister following the death of his father. He held his first 
job, as a printer's apprentice, when he was ten. While earning high grades at Hollywood High 
School and then at the University of California at Los Angeles, Carter worked in the tailoring 
room of Sherwood's, a men's clothing store on Wilshire Boulevard, and later as a salesman, 
having learned, he said, "it was the salesmen who made the most money." Working only part 
time, he became Sherwood's most successful salesman, responsible for no less than 25 percent 
of sales. Carter graduated from UCLA in 1932 with a degree in philosophy and economics. 

He continued to work at Sherwood's for the next few years to support his young family (his 
wife Christine Dailey Carter and the first of two children) and save enough to go to business 
school. At Harvard Business School he earned top honors and a scholarship in his first year. 
Graduating first in his class in 1937, he was offered a position there as professor of retailing. 
He chose instead to return to Los Angeles, where he went to work for the May Company 
department store as a merchandising manager. In 1946 he accepted an offer to join the Broadway 
department store, which awarded him profit sharing and stock options. Only a year later, 
at age thirty-five, he was named Broadway's chief executive officer. Carter revolutionized the 
department store industry by modernizing the company's stores and moving them into 
the suburbs. One of the first to see the potential of shopping malls and stores located in the 
expanding suburban neighborhoods, he used the map of Los Angeles's proposed freeway 
system to determine where to locate new stores. 

In 1950, with Carter's leadership, the Broadway merged with Hale Brothers Stores, 
a San Francisco-based retail chain, becoming Broadway-Hale. By 1959, through mergers and 
acquisitions, the company had grown from three stores with aggregate sales of about $30 
million to fifteen stores with sales approximating $175 million. In 1972, when Carter became 
chairman of Broadway-Hale after making Philip M. Hawley chief executive, the com¬ 
pany operated fifty-four department stores under multiple names, including the Broadway, 
Emporium, Capwell's, and Weinstock's in California, Arizona, and Nevada; Bergdorf 


Goodman in New York; Neiman Marcus; Waldenbooks; and Sunset House, a mail order 
business. In 1975 the corporation, renamed Carter, Hawley, Hale, acquired 20 percent 
of the House of Fraser, which operated the famous London retailer Harrod's as well as its 
affiliates throughout Great Britain and the Continent. 

By 1950, the year he successfully merged the Broadway with Hale Brothers, Carter, not 
yet forty but already a millionaire, took on new challenges as a civic leader in cultural and 
educational affairs, as well as in business. Carter said he visited museums as a youth because 
he wanted to, but he credited Harry C. James, leader of a local boys' club, with introducing 
him at the age of ten to the symphony and opera. A member of the board of the Southern 
California Symphony Association, sponsor of the Los Angeles Philharmonic Orchestra since 
1947, Carter became the symphony's vice president in 1950 and its president in 1955. He would 
also serve as a member and president of the board of the Los Angeles Opera, a trustee of 
Occidental College and Stanford University, and a board member of numerous businesses 
and other cultural and educational institutions. In 1952 Governor Earl Warren appointed 
Carter a regent of the University of California, a post he held for thirty-six years, including 
during the turbulent 1960s, when he served as president of the Board of Regents. 

Edward Carter began collecting paintings modestly and without any clear idea of build¬ 
ing a collection. Prentiss Hale (1910-1996), president of Hale Brothers and Carter's business 
partner who lived in San Francisco, introduced him to the New York paintings dealer and 
president of Kleinberger & Company, Harry Sperling (1906-1971), who in 1956 sold Carter his 
first picture, a river landscape attributed to Jan van Goyen. In his speech at the opening of 
the exhibition of his collection at LACMA in 1981, Carter recalled his excitement when his first 
painting was delivered to his house in 1956 and Howard Ahmanson (1906-1968) walked across 
the street to help uncrate and examine it. "That event," Carter suggested, "undoubtedly 
kindled [Ahmanson's] interest in collecting and ultimately resulted in his becoming this 
museum's largest benefactor." 

Although the attribution to Van Goyen would later be rejected and the painting sold, 
Sperling, who advised and sometimes partnered with Hale in acquiring paintings, would play 
an important role in establishing Carter as a collector. With Hale's encouragement, often 
informing him of Carter's travels, Sperling began to correspond with Carter, offering him 
Dutch and, later, French paintings. In 1957 Carter purchased from Kleinberger's a mountain 
landscape by Jacob van Ruisdael. The following year Sperling offered him Interior of the Jesuit 
Church with Paintings by Rubens by Gonzales Coques and Wilhelm von Ehrenberg. Neither 
painting remained in the collection as Carter refined his taste and the quality of his holdings. 
The first painting to become a permanent part of the collection was by one of Carter's favorite 
artists, Willem van de Velde the Younger, A Yacht and Other Vessels in a Calm, which he purchased 
from Sperling in 1959. 

Correspondence between Carter and Sperling covering the years 1957 through 1968 
reveals that Carter looked to the dealer for advice about paintings he had seen elsewhere 
and that Sperling also facilitated his donation of paintings to institutions with which Carter 
seems to have had no direct connections. Typically, Sperling would suggest to Carter that 
he donate funds to an institution so that it could acquire a painting already on loan there from 
the dealer. In 1958 the beneficiaries of Carter's gifts, sometimes paralleling those made by 
Prentiss Hale at Sperling's suggestion, were Williams College in Williamstown, Massachusetts; 
Wells College in Aurora, New York; and the California Palace of the Legion of Honor in San 
Francisco. The gifts were often anonymous and made with the transfer of stock rather than 
cash. In 1959 Carter arranged through Sperling to give the Metropolitan Museum of Art 
in New York Judith with the Head ofHolofernes, a large painting by the seventeenth-century 


Neapolitan painter Massimo Stanzione (1585-1656); the painting was delivered directly from 
Kleinberger & Company to the Metropolitan Museum. In 1964 Carter donated one thousand 
shares of Broadway-Hale stock to the California Palace of the Legion of Honor, and in 1967 
he donated stock to Vassar College specifically to purchase paintings from Kleinberger's. 

These individual donations undoubtedly initiated Carter's interest in ultimately becoming 
one of LACMA's most generous donors of works of art. 

In the late 1950s a group of trustees of the Los Angeles County Museum of History, 
Science, and Art who were interested in art, including Edward Carter, developed a plan to 
create an art museum that would be separate from the multifaceted county facility in 
Exposition Park. In 1957 Richard Brown, curator of art at the Los Angeles County Museum 
and later the first director of the art museum, and the industrialist Norton Simon approached 
Carter about leading the campaign to raise private funds for the new museum. Carter agreed, 
but only if the county board of supervisors met several conditions of partnership: (1) make 
a county-owned property available; (2) underwrite the annual operating expenses of the museum; 
and (3) vest the management of the museum and its private grants in a self-perpetuating 
board independent of public agencies. In 1961 the Los Angeles County Museum of Art formally 
separated from the Museum of History and Science. The new museum was to be built in 
Hancock Park, county-owned land just east of Beverly Hills. An article by Art Seidenbaum, 
published on 28 March 1965 in the Los Angeles Times on the occasion of the opening of the Los 
Angeles County Museum of Art, noted: "It is said that more than any of the men and women 
who put money and time into the new museum, Edward Carter made it happen. Carter picked 
and won the site, $8,000,000 worth of land, he realized his demand that the county agree to 
underwriting expenses and he became president of the self-perpetuating board that he created." 

Carter turned to his friends and business contacts. The first major gift to the art museum 
was $2 million from the financier Howard Ahmanson, president of Home Savings. The 
Ahmanson Foundation established after Ahmanson's death remains the major supporter of 
the European Painting and Sculpture Department at LACMA. The Bing Fund and Norton 
Simon each pledged $1 million, and the Lytton Foundation, $750,000. Other donations, inclu¬ 
ding those from the Carters and the heirs of William Randolph Hearst, went to the naming 
of galleries in the new museum. A total of $12 million was raised. "Remarkable, by itself," the 
Los Angeles Times reported, "historic, when one considers that Carter and his team were able 
to raise that amount at the same time that others in the city were soliciting money for the 
Music Center in downtown Los Angeles, which opened within four months of the museum." 

As he had foreseen the need for building shopping centers in the suburbs. Carter recognized 
the need and desire of the growing population of Southern California for culture. 

In 1963 Edward Carter married Hannah Locke Caldwell in Atherton, California. It was 
the second marriage for both. Hannah Locke was born in Morristown, New Jersey, in 1914. 

A Quaker, she often referred to people as "thee" and "thou." At age eight she moved with her 
family to Europe, where she attended school in Paris and Switzerland. After five or six years, 
the family relocated to Philadelphia, and Hannah, then a teenager, went to boarding school in 
Connecticut. In 1936, several years after graduating from high school, she joined the United 
States' first women's Olympic ski team, but with the outbreak of World War II the 1940 
Olympics were canceled. Hannah Locke Carter was enrolled in the National Ski Hall of Fame 
in 1973 and remained active in the Olympic movement, serving on the board of the Los 
Angeles Olympic Organizing Committee in 1984. Her first taste of California came during 
World War II, when her first husband, Emott Caldwell, was in the Naval Air Force and 
assigned to the Pacific. The couple moved back to Philadelphia after the war and raised their 
five children there before moving to Northern California in 1950. 


Hannah Carter, who would play an important role in the building of the Carter collection, 
grew up with family portraits by the American painter Chester Harding (1792-1866) and Thomas 
Hicks (1823-1890), a relative of hers and the nephew of the painter Edward Hicks (1780-1849). 
While at boarding school in Europe and Connecticut, she studied art history. She spoke fondly 
of a wonderful teacher at her school in Connecticut who taught art history and took students 
on trips to the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Frick Collection in New York. “I liked all 
of them, the French. I studied the Italians earlier—early Italians. Corot appealed to me a great 
deal as a young girl.” When asked by an interviewer why she liked works by Corot, she 
responded: "It's a sort of conservative painting. And you can recognize what's in it... it's soft. 
Maybe it's a little feminine... as a young girl, I just thought Corot was the most marvelous 
kind of painting.'' 1 

The first painting that the couple bought after they were married was a Corot, in 1964. 
Hannah Carter recalled, "Mr. Carter was so generous. He said, Tf you've always wanted a Corot 
you're going to have to get one.' So that was very exciting.'' Sperling, whom she described as 
"a wonderful man... very interested in us,'' had seen the Corot in the preview of an auction in 
London and contacted the Carters, who were then in Paris. It was one of the few paintings 
they bought sight unseen. After the removal of the dirty varnish that had covered the painting 
when it went to auction, they were delighted with the acquisition. Hannah was especially 
pleased when she realized it had belonged to Louis Hill, the grandfather of one of her very 
close friends. The Carters enjoyed the Corot painting for twenty years before selling it to 
acquire a Dutch painting they wanted. Years later Hannah lamented that the dealer to whom 
they had sold it would not divulge the name of the Japanese buyer so that they could have 
visited the painting in his collection. 

The Carters did not originally specialize in seventeenth-century Dutch paintings. They 
also acquired a number of French paintings—at one point, among others, they owned two 
Corots, a Courbet, and a large seascape by Eugene Boudin, as well as View of the Grand Canal by 
Francesco Guardi, acquired from Newhouse Galleries in 1973. A beautiful late Corot and 
a flower-and-fruit still life by Henri Fantin-Latour that they purchased from Eugene Thaw in 
1977 remained in the collection until Mrs. Carter's death. As she noted about these acquisitions, 
"They were paintings that we liked and could afford, and we had pleasure out of looking at 
[them].'' Looking back to their decision to focus on Dutch paintings, Edward Carter recalled, 
"The two fields that I liked best were... French Impressionists and the Dutch seventeenth- 
century landscapes. By that time the price of Impressionists and their availability, the prices 
were very high. And... the prices of Dutch, as yet, were not very high— There wasn't much 
demand at the time. I thought I could have a finer quality and more comprehensive collection 
with Dutch. And I also like Dutch a little bit better of the two.'' 

Edward Carter later explained that the decision to form a serious collection came shortly 
after the founding of LACMA, in 1965: "I decided that I would undertake to put together 
a collection of my own, with the hope that beyond my wife's and my life that it would become 
a separate collection within the museum. And we hoped to be able to leave the paintings to 
the museum.... Very early I decided that I would buy only the very finest of quality. And then 
limit the size of the collection... my purpose was to have the major artists represented in the 
collection and to keep the quality extremely high.'' By focusing narrowly. Carter said, "the 
collection would better represent that whole segment.... First, I could learn more about the 
narrower field. And second, the quality of, and the comprehensiveness of the collecting 
in the narrower field would be enhanced.'' To this end the Carters visited exhibitions and 
permanent collections in public museums, and they met dealers who introduced them to 
private collectors, curators, and academics. 


The Carters bought slowly and cautiously at first, gradually expanding their contacts 
with dealers, scholars, and curators. In 1962, before his marriage to Hannah, Edward had 
purchased Meindert Hobbema's Landscape with a Footbridge from the New York gallery Rosenberg 
and Stiebel. An indication of his inexperience as a collector. Carter talked the dealer into 
selling him only one of the pair of small landscapes. It would be eleven years before he was 
able to correct his mistake and buy the companion painting. Landscape with Anglers and a Distant 
Town, which had been sold in the interim to the Dutch collector Sydney van den Bergh (1898- 
1977) through the dealer Hans Cramer in The Hague. In 1967, the same year that he donated 
stock anonymously to Vassar College to purchase paintings from Sperling, Carter bought 
for himself A Calm Sea near Dordrecht by Aelbert Cuyp from another New York dealer, Frederick 
Mont. The following year Carter acquired Emanuel de Witte's Interior of the Oude Kerk, Amsterdam 
from Newhouse Galleries, New York, which often worked closely with Mont, who in 1970 
sold the Carters View of Grainfields with a Distant Town by Jacob van Ruisdael. 2 

As the Carters' interest and confidence in collecting Dutch paintings increased, they began 
to attract the attention of scholars, collectors, and dealers. Among their first advisers was Ben 
Johnson (1938-1990), a young, gifted painting conservator who established the Conservation 
Center at LACMA in 1967 with support from Edward Carter and Howard Ahmanson. It 
was the first conservation laboratory on the West Coast. Johnson and Kenneth Donahue (1915- 
1985), a scholar of seventeenth-century art who had succeeded Richard Brown as director 
of the museum in 1966, shared the responsibilities of curator of paintings and were in contact 
with dealers seeking to connect with collectors in Los Angeles. In addition to Edward Carter, 
the major collectors of European paintings were Norton Simon and Armand Hammer. 

In February 1970 the Dutch dealer Cramer wrote to Donahue asking if a winter scene 
by Jan van de Cappelle, which had been refused by Simon, might interest Carter or Hammer. 3 
On 3 April Barbara Roberts, who was working for Simon, wrote to Cramer declining the 
purchase of a Pieter Claesz. for Simon, who was running for the United States Senate, but 
suggested in a handwritten note that Carter might be a potential buyer. 4 On 9 April Cramer 
wrote to Carter to offer him the still-life painting by Claesz. and concluded, “It would be 
a pleasure for me to come into contact with you, as I have been told that you have one of the 
finest collections of Dutch paintings in the United States." 5 Carter thanked Cramer for send¬ 
ing him the reproduction of the Claesz., noting, “I like it but not enough to buy. My special 
interest lies in Seventeenth Century Dutch landscapes and I should be very pleased to hear 
from you about any that come to your attention." 6 Later, when asked by an interviewer why 
he chose landscape and, subsequently, still life. Carter replied, “They just appealed to me." 

On 26 June 1970 Cramer, apparently testing the level of Carter's interest, wrote that 
he had recently acquired “an extreme [sic] fine small seascape by Reiner Nooms called Zeeman 
and a very Van Goyen-like landscape by Jacob van Mosscher. If you like, I can send you 
fotographs [sic]. Also I may offer from Dutch private property, an unusually important Van 
Goyen, falling in the price of $70,000 .1 will be pleased to give details soon, if you wish." 7 
Carter replied three days later indicating his interest in the “unusually important Van Goyen." 8 
Carter's mention of the best painting undoubtedly impressed Cramer that he was a serious 
collector. By 31 August, however, Cramer, having heard nothing from Carter or Donahue about 
the painting, wrote to Darryl Isley at the Norton Simon Foundation to offer Mr. Simon the 
Van Goyen. 9 

In 1971 the Carters purchased their first painting from the dealer David Koetser (London 
and Zurich). The painting. Ships in a Calm by Jan van de Cappelle, a particularly fine work, 
was their second seascape, joining A Yacht and OtherVessels in a Calm by Willem van de Velde the 
Younger, which the Carters had acquired in 1959 from Sperling. 


The Carters' serious collecting began in 1971. In March of that year, Donahue, director of 
LACMA, wrote to Cramer, "Would you please send a photograph of the Adriaen van de Velde 
Flat Panorama Landscape if it has not been sold. Dr. De Vries thought Mr. Carter might be 
interested in the picture." 10 In 1981 Ary Bob de Vries (1905-1983), who had retired as director of 
the Mauritshuis in The Hague in 1970, recalled that he and the Carters "first had the chance 
of closer acquaintance during a prolonged stay in California some ten years ago," probably the 
winter of 1970-71. Even though at that time the Carters' collection was small, De Vries 
considered Carter "a genuine collector and a real friend." 11 Carter always credited Bob de Vries 
with being one of his most important advisers in assembling his collection. 

In 1971, following the advice of De Vries, the Carters purchased Panoramic Landscape near 
Rhenen with theHuis terLede, which De Vries and Professor Egbert Haverkamp-Begemann 
agreed was more likely a work by Anthonie van Borssom, an attribution later confirmed by the 
discovery of a signature. In the same year, the Carters also acquired Jan van der Heyden's 
The Herengracht, Amsterdam, Viewed from theLiliegracht. The Van der Heyden was the first of four 
important paintings they would buy through Cramer from the collection of Sidney van den 
Bergh. The head of Unilever, Van den Bergh, who lived in Wassenaar, a wealthy suburb of The 
Hague, had built a much admired collection of seventeenth-century Dutch paintings after 
the war. De Vries knew the collection well; he had advised the collector and published an article 
in 1964, followed by a book about the collection in 1968. 12 

It is unclear exactly how the Carters were introduced to Van den Bergh. Undoubtedly 
the Dutch collector had heard from more than one person about the Los Angeles couple who 
was interested in buying important Dutch paintings. In addition to De Vries, Cramer was 
closely associated with the collector. In a peevish letter written to Carter on 14 October 1981, 
however, the New York collector Frits Markus (1909-1996) was upset about an article in 
the New York Daily News referring to a dinner given by LACMA in the Carters' honor at the 
time of the opening of their exhibition, A Mirror of Nature: 

What struck me was the statement that Mr. Newhouse of New York's Newhouse Galleries 
was instrumental in your acquiring the greater part of your collection. Looking through 
my files, and searching my memory, I believe that amongst other things, I have been 
instrumental in bringing you together with my wife's uncle, Sidney van den Bergh, with 

the object of your acquiring the cream of his collection—in which you succeeded_ 

I also accommodated these transactions by introducing you to Mr. Cramer as I never 
wanted to do it as a dealer, and Mr. Cramer accommodated both parties for 5%. It is also my 
recollection that I often counseled you in selecting Dutch Paintings—very much so in 
the case of the Van den Bergh paintings.... It isn't that I want any credit for it, but I was 
amused by the article. 13 

On 29 October Carter replied to Markus: 

You were indeed the one responsible for putting me in touch with Sidney van den Bergh 
whose wonderful Avercamp and Van der Heyden really inaugurated our serious collecting. 
... Moreover you were later nice enough to arrange for me to buy the Dirk de Bray and 
one of the Hobbemas. Finally, you introduced us to Hans Cramer, who was the middle 
man in these transactions and subsequently furnished us several other paintings. So 
we are deeply indebted to you for both your direct and indirect assistance and wish to 
express our gratitude. It is also true that the Newhouses, sometimes in partnership 
with the Monts, sold us eight of the thirty-one pictures in the Dutch collection as well as 
a Guardi and Corot, which we still own. 14 


Although the exact circumstances of how Carter came to know Cramer and Van den 
Bergh are unclear, in a letter dated 11 October 1971 Carter, who had already agreed to purchase 
the Van der Heyden but had decided against the Van de Cappelle that Cramer had sent him 
on approval in September 1971, wrote to Cramer that he was eager to meet Van den Bergh in 
December, when he and his wife were planning to be in Holland. "Without the benefit of 
seeing the pictures that you might have available, our interest continues to center on the van 
der Neer, the van Anraadt, and the de Bray” 15 On 5 November Cramer wrote to Van den Bergh 
that Carter was delighted with the catalogue of the Dutchman's collection that Cramer had 
sent him and desired to visit the collection in person, noting that he knows it is not yet for sale 
but that his first choice is the Avercamp. Three days later the meeting was set. On 8 November 
Cramer wrote to Carter "to confirm that Mr. van den Bergh will be very pleased to meet you on 
December 11th.... He also expressed the wish to meet you personally.” 16 The collectors finally 
met on 11 December 1971. Van den Bergh, whose wife had died the previous August, had 
just celebrated his seventy-third birthday and returned from China, where he had gone as 
head of a trade mission. 

Although he had not fully decided to sell the paintings, in September 1971 Van den Bergh 
had asked Cramer to update the appraisals he had made of his collection on 30 May 1969. 
Carter was not alone in seeking out Van den Bergh, who was only rumored to be selling his 
paintings. On 5 June 1970 Cramer had written to Van den Bergh that the New York still- 
life collector John Lowenthal and his wife, Anne, a scholar of seventeenth-century Dutch 
painting, had asked to meet the Dutch collector and see his collection. 

In a letter of 15 October 1971 Cramer informed Carter that Van den Bergh's still lifes by 
Van Anraadt and Dirck de Bray were "more or less promised to the Mauritshuis,” and that 
the high price recently paid at auction for a Salomon van Ruysdael "makes every transaction 
a little bit more complicated.” 17 After considerable negotiations, ultimately the Still Life with 
StoneJugandPipes, a unique work by Pieter van Anraadt, went to the Mauri tshuis, opening 
the way in 1973 for the Carters to buy and export the beautiful Flowers in a Glass Vase by Dirck 
de Bray for their collection. 18 

The prize of the Van den Bergh collection was undeniably Hendrick Avercamp's much 
coveted Winter Scene on a Frozen Canal In his letter to Van den Bergh dated 5 November 1971, 
Cramer mentioned that although Carter knew it was not yet for sale, his first choice from the 
collection was the Avercamp. Later, when asked by an interviewer about the painting. Carter 
remarked that the painting had "a great aesthetic appeal to me; represents the life of the 
seventeenth century; gives you a feeling of what life was like at the time; some are businessmen, 
some old, some young, some Bohemian, some more traditional; I also like the composition, 
the color, the brightness, the sky.” He succeeded in buying the beautiful winter landscape 
filled with anecdotal detail in 1972, soon after the couple's visit to Van den Bergh. The Avercamp, 
which hung over the fireplace in the Carters' study, was the favorite painting of Hannah Carter, 
the Olympic skier. 

The successful acquisition of the Van der Heyden and the Avercamp, both universally 
admired for their exceptional quality and state of preservation, established the Carters as major 
collectors and gave Edward Carter the reputation of having an "unerring eye” for pictures. 
With new confidence and the advice of experts in the field, they accelerated the pace of their 
acquisitions and reconsidered previous purchases that were often sold or traded. Ben Johnson, 
LACMA's conservator of paintings, often traveled with them to advise about condition and 
quality. For advice they also reached out to leading connoisseurs of seventeenth-century Dutch 
painting—Bob de Vries, Egbert Haverkamp-Begemann, Seymour Slive, Horst Gerson, Otto 
Whitman, and especially Wolfgang Stechow, whose recently published book on Dutch land¬ 
scape painting Hannah Carter described as "the Bible for anyone who's collecting 17th-century 
Dutch paintings.” Over the years, the Carters developed not only professional relationships 
but also true friendships with the many scholars, curators, and dealers whom they met and 
from whom they learned about Dutch paintings. "We're friends,” Hannah Carter said, "we're 
friends with all of them.” 


In 1972 they also began a relationship with the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the 
young curator of Dutch paintings there, John Walsh. Edward Carter later noted Walsh, 
who with his wife, Jill, would become great friends of the Carters, "[has] always been willing 
to share his point of view on paintings with me, very useful and enjoyable” It was not uncom¬ 
mon during the 1970s for the Carters to arrive at the offices of the Department of European 
Paintings at the Metropolitan with their newest acquisition, which they had arranged to loan 
to the museum for three months. In 1959 Carter had given the Stanzione to the Metropolitan 
through Sperling and in December 1969 had donated stock to the museum for its Centennial 
Campaign, but he had no real personal involvement with the Metropolitan until 1972. 

The initial contact with the museum came through Donahue, director of LACMA, who wrote 
to Theodore Rousseau, formerly head of the European Paintings Department who was then 
deputy director/chief curator under the director, Thomas Hoving. Donahue offered the loan 
of the Carters' newly acquired painting by Avercamp. Between 1972 and 1985 the Carters lent 
the Metropolitan Museum sixteen paintings, each for a period of three months. 19 

Cramer, who worked primarily on consignment after 1970, continued to be an important 
source of paintings for the Carters. In 1973 he negotiated the acquisition from the Van den 
Bergh collection of Dirck de Bray's Flowers in a Glass Vase and Meindert Hobbema's Landscape 
with Anglers and a Distant Town, completing the pair that Carter had broken up when he 
purchased only Landscape with Footbridge from Rosenberg and Stiebel in 1962. Cramer also sold 
the Carters Willem van de Velde's Beach with FishingBoats Pulled Up on Shore and Ambrosius 
Bosschaert's Still Life of Flowers , formerly in the William Middendorf collection. In 1976 Cramer 
purchased Adriaen van de Velde's The Beach atScheveningen at auction in London for the Carters, 
in 1978 he sold them Still Life with Tobacco, Beer ; and Wine by Willem Claesz. Heda, and the follow¬ 
ing year, Jan van Goyen's View of Dordrecht. 

The Carters were often in London during the 1970s, especially after 1974, when Broadway- 
Hale acquired part ownership of Harrod's. As a board member of the company. Carter was 
in London once a month for meetings, which allowed him to become more familiar with the 
London art market. In 1973 he purchased Salomon van Ruysdael's River Landscape with a Ferry 
from Edward Speelman, the London private picture dealer who built the highly regarded 
collection of Dutch and Flemish paintings for the British real estate developer and entrepreneur 
Harold Samuel (1912-1987). During one of their trips to London, Speelman took the Carters 
to meet Samuel and visit the collection, which he ultimately bequeathed to the City of London. 
On another trip to London, in 1977, the Carters purchased from the Brod Gallery Pieter Jansz. 
Saenredam's Interior of the Sint-Mariakerk, Utrecht, one of their most important acquisitions. 

The New York dealer Clyde Newhouse (1920-1986), often in silent partnership with 
Frederick Mont, sold the Carters many of their most interesting and important paintings 
during the mid- to late 1970s. In 1973 Newhouse sold the Carters Francesco Guardi's Venice, 
a View on the Grand Canal and the next year. Wild Strawberries in a Wan-Li Bowl by Adriaen Coorte 
and Adam Pynacker's View of a Harbor in Schiedam. Also in 1974 the Carters acquired from 
Newhouse Jan van Huysum's Bouquet of Flowers in an Urn, an incredibly beautiful and immacu¬ 
lately preserved early eighteenth-century painting with a stellar provenance. Years later 
Hannah Carter admitted to an interviewer that although the painting had grown on her over 
the years and she admired it, she had at first hesitated: "I knew it was a wonderful painting... 
[but] it was not me... I'm a sort of a plain person. And it was a little too Baroque.'' In 1976 the 
Carters purchased from Newhouse and the Dutch dealer Robert Noortman a more typical 
Carter painting, Gerrit Adriaensz. Berckheyde's TheNieuwezijds Voorburgwalwith the Flower and 
Tree Markets in Amsterdam. 


The Carters' most important purchase in 1976, however, was Ambrosius Bosschaert 
the Elder's jewel-like Bouquet of Flowers on a Ledge, which also came from Newhouse and replaced 
Bosschaert's Still Life with Flowers, which they had purchased from Cramer in 1973 and sold 
after acquiring the new work. Two more purchases followed in 1978, when the Carters bought 
the moody Panoramic Landscape with a Village by Philips Koninck and their second painting 
by Emanuel de Witte, Interior of the Nieuwe Kerk in Delft with the Tomb of William the Silent from 
Newhouse. A painting by Nicolaes Berchem, Landscape with Herdsmen Gathering Sticks, which 
they purchased from Newhouse in 1980, they later sold, but the others remain in the collection. 

The dealer David Koetser became important to the Carters in the 1970s. He had sold them 
Ships in a Calm by Van de Cappelle in 1971, Frozen River with a Footbridge by Aert van der Neer in 
1976, Frans Post's Brazilian Landscape with Plantation House the following year, and the large View 
of a Beach by Simon de Vlieger in 1981. 

The Carters were clearly on the mind of every dealer who had Dutch paintings to offer. 
During the late 1970s, new names appeared, especially Saam Nystad in The Hague. In 1977, 
with the advice of John Walsh, who had written his dissertation on Jan Porcellis, the Carters 
purchased from Nystad Vessels in a Moderate Breeze, an early tonal seascape by the artist. 

A landscape by Van Goyen that the Carters bought in the same year from Nystad they sold three 
years later as they continued to refine their taste and collection. In 1979 Nystad sold the 
Carters Landscape with a Draftsman by the influential Italianate Dutch painter Jan Dirksz. Both 
and two years later, the early winter landscape painted on paper and mounted on panel by 
Esaias van de Velde, Cottages and Frozen River. 

In the late 1970s the Carters began to think about the possibility of an exhibition of their 
collection at LACMA, where they had often publicly expressed their intention to donate 
the paintings. It was decided that the exhibition would begin in Los Angeles and travel to the 
Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, where Walsh was then curator of European paintings, and 
on to the Metropolitan Museum of Art, where so many of their paintings had been lent on 
a short-term basis. They asked Walsh to write a catalogue of the collection for the exhibition. 

To assist him, he enlisted Cynthia Schneider, a graduate student at Harvard who later taught 
at Georgetown University and served as American ambassador to the Netherlands. 

A Mirror of Nature: Dutch Paintings from the Collection ofMr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter 
officially opened at LACMA on 13 October 1981 and ran until just after New Year's Day 1982. 
Writing to her husband on 6 October on the occasion of the private opening of the exhibition, 
Hannah Carter expressed her enthusiasm: 

To see the PAINTINGS hanging, more or less all together, all at once is a THRILL! The 
Collection hangs, as a whole, better than any I have ever seen. The number of paintings 
not too large, each one a choice example of the artist's work—interesting and varied 
subject matter, each one in fine condition. What I want to say, is that thee had a lot of 
courage to accumulate the collection, in spite of me, and the result is stupendous. 20 

In his speech to the assembled guests at the opening reception, Edward Carter closed: 

Hannah and I hope that our Dutch paintings will come to this museum beyond our lives. 
As you may have observed, the two collections complement each other well, which 
is not entirely by accident, and together should form one of the most distinguished and 
comprehensive collections of seventeenth-century Dutch paintings in the country. 21 

Recommending the "marvelous exhibition" that had just opened at LACMA, the Los Angeles 
Herald Examiner art critic Christopher Knight noted that the Carters' collection was "regarded 
by many as the finest private holdings of Dutch art in America," and he restated their intention 


"to bequeath this jewel of a collection to LACMA. With that in mind, it becomes clear that 
the collection has been intelligently selected, focusing on landscapes, still lifes, and seascapes 
to mesh nicely with the museum's own holdings of portraiture and genre paintings." 22 

When A Mirror of 'Nature opened in Boston in January, John Russell, art critic for the New 
York Times who planned to write a full review of the exhibition when it reached New York, 
could not resist mentioning "the [Carters'] very superior collection" in an article focused on 
the concurrent monographic exhibition of works by Jacob van Ruisdael at the Fogg Art 
Museum, Harvard University. 23 In the news release about the exhibition, which opened at the 
Metropolitan Museum on 7 April, Philippe de Montebello wrote, "The collection of 17th- 
century paintings assembled by Mr. and Mrs. Carter is an outstanding achievement. Few public 
or private collections outside the Netherlands have such a wide representation of 17th-century 
Dutch paintings of comparable quality." 24 

On 16 April 1982, in an article in the New York Times , Russell called the collection a "jewel 
box of Old Masters," describing the selection as "thoughtful, strange and touching beyond 
all expectation." 25 Years later, on 3 June 1990, referring to the 1981-82 exhibition, Russell wrote 
in the New York Times , "It goes without saying that any of these museums would have been 
delighted to own, in time, any one painting from the show, let alone all of them." 26 

Letters of congratulation and praise poured in from American and European friends, 
many of whom had advised the Carters. Seymour Slive and his wife, Zoya, sent a telegram 
from Harvard: "In the heavenly place which is the reward of artists all the painters listed in 
Bernt [a dictionary of seventeenth-century Dutch painters] are rejoicing because the exhibi¬ 
tion of your choice collection shows the wide public the outstanding quality and enormous 
pleasure that can be derived from Dutch pictures. We share their monumental delight." 

Betty Mont recalled the pleasure she and her husband, Frederick, had working with 
the Carters, noting that twelve of the paintings in the collection had come through them. 
Regrets from people who were unable to attend the private opening requested or thanked 
them for copies of the catalogue and informed the Carters of paintings of high quality and 
condition that they thought might interest them. Invitations to meet other important 
Dutch and American collectors also multiplied now that the quality of their collection was 
so widely recognized. 

In addition to the collectors they personally visited, the Carters graciously welcomed 
people to see their collection in their Bel Air home, where the paintings were beautifully 
displayed as an integral part of the tasteful furnishings. Collectors, scholars, curators, dealers, 
and students as well as friends and business associates were regularly welcomed by the 
Carters. Even the queen of the Netherlands visited the Carters in their home to see their famous 
collection of seventeenth-century Dutch paintings. Both Mr. and Mrs. Carter delighted in 
walking their visitors through the collection, commenting on details about the artist and 
the paintings and carefully listening to the comments of their visitors. They wanted to learn 
about the works they owned. 

The Carters' acquisition of paintings slowed during the 1980s following their first exhibi¬ 
tion. The paintings by Esaias van de Velde and De Vlieger, acquired in 1981, were last-minute 
additions to the exhibition. In 1982 the Carters purchased two more paintings, both from 
Nystad: Jan van Goyen's View of Arnhem, their second masterpiece by the Dutch painter of tonal 
landscapes; and one of the most aesthetically pleasing and perfectly conserved works by Clara 
Peeters, Still Life with Cheeses; Artichoke, and Cherries. The following year they added two more 
paintings: an early painting by Willem Kalf, Still Life with a Porcelain Vase, Silver-gilt Ewer, and 
Glasses, that was jointly sold by the dealers John Hoogsteder in The Hague and Otto Naumann 
in New York; and Salomon van Ruysdael's View of the River Lek and Vianen from Noortman & Brod 


in Maastricht. Their most important acquisition was The Great Oak, purchased from the London 
firm Harari & Johns in 1985. Painted by Jacob van Ruisdael with figures by Nicolaes Berchem, 
the painting had belonged to the famous Italian collection of Cardinal Gonzaga in the 
eighteenth century. The Great Oak was the last painting to enter the collection. The Carters' 
fabulous adventure buying paintings had come to an end. It was time to enjoy what they 
had. When David Koetser offered them Jan Davidsz. de Heem's beautiful Still Life with Oysters 
and Grapes, a perfect "Carter painting/' they passed it on to LACMA for consideration. Scott 
Schaefer, then curator of European paintings, purchased the still life for the museum with the 
support of The Ahmanson Foundation. 

In 1991 LACMA exhibited A Mirror of Nature and republished the catalogue by Walsh 
and Schneider with the addition of the six paintings purchased since the original exhibition 
ten years earlier. William Wilson wrote in the Los Angeles Times on 3 November 1992 that the 
collection was "renowned among scholars for both its connoisseurship and its clear exercise of 
decisive personal taste." 27 

The Carters continued to travel to see exhibitions and collections and receive visitors at 
their home. Even as Mr. Carter's health declined, Mrs. Carter included him in her activities 
and travels. Joseph Fronek, who became LACMA's head paintings conservator in 1986, developed 
a strong relationship with the Carters, who depended on him to conserve the collection and 
to evaluate loans, possible acquisitions, and frames. They also became close friends. Following 
Edward Carter's death in 1994, Fronek often escorted Mrs. Carter to the theater and concerts 
as well as to see exhibitions in which her paintings were included. Mrs. Carter was a regular 
visitor to what she always called "our museum" and dropped into the museum's conservation 
department as if it were her second home. She looked forward to lunch in LACMA's cafe with 
Fronek and his colleague Jini Rasmussen and others. She always had a warm smile and hello 
for everyone, from the director to the guards, all of whom greeted her with true affection. 

In the winter of 2004 Cramer, who was in Los Angeles as a guest of the Getty Research Institute, 
to which he had donated his business records, made a visit with the author to see Hannah 
Carter. Walking through the house, viewing the paintings, the two old friends, both well into 
their eighties, reminisced about the fun they had had in the 1970s selecting and talking 
about paintings. 

In 2003 Hannah Carter, who, William Wilson said, "puts one in mind of Katharine 
Hepburn," 28 gifted eleven paintings from the collection to LACMA. It was not the first gift, 
but it was the largest to date. In 1991 the Carters had given Ruisdael's The Great Oak and Van 
Huysum's flower still life, followed in 1995 by De Vlieger's View of a Beach and in 1996 Aelbert 
Cuyp's The Flight into Egypt. In 2004, when Hannah Carter moved to Northern California to 
be near her children, the twenty-four paintings remaining in her collection, including Corot's 
River Landscape, Fantin-Latour's Fleurs et fruits, and the family portraits, were brought to 
LACMA for safekeeping. Hannah Carter died in Menlo Park, California, on 20 April 2009. The 
collection that Hannah and Edward Carter had lovingly built to be given to LACMA was 
finally home, located in galleries that they had donated to the museum that Edward Carter 
had helped to build in 1965. 29 

Standing in the newly installed galleries in which the low horizons and broad skies of 
the landscapes and the beautifully composed still lifes create an impression of serenity, William 
Carter, Edward Carter's son by his first marriage, looked from painting to painting. He had 
been going through his father's papers filled with the many accolades and awards, and records 
of his accomplishments as a leader in business, education, and culture. Yet, he remarked 
that his father's greatest legacy was this, the thirty-six carefully selected seventeenth-century 
Dutch paintings that constitute the Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter collection. 


The legacy of the Carter collection, which is an important part of LACMA, extends beyond 
Los Angeles through not only the children and adults who visit the museum but also the 
people who have been inspired to collect Dutch paintings because of seeing the paintings in 
the Carters' home or in the museum, or simply knowing the collection through the catalogue 
A Mirror of Nature. In the introduction to the catalogue Golden: Dutch and Flemish Paintings 
from the Rose-Marie and Eijk van Otterloo Collection, regarded as one of the most important private 
collections of seventeenth-century Dutch and Flemish paintings formed in the last thirty 
years, Frederik Duparc notes: "At the very beginning of their collecting career in the early 1990s, 
[the Van Otterloos] were inspired by The Edward and Hannah Carter Collection.... During 
a much more recent visit to the Los Angeles County Museum of Art... they were once again 
deeply impressed by its high quality as well as by the public recognition accorded to the 
Carters' achievements as collectors." 30 According to Eijk van Otterloo, the Carter collection set 
the standard for them in terms of both quality and condition of the paintings. Inspired 
by the Carters, in 2017 the Van Otterloos donated their collection to the Museum of Fine Arts, 
Boston, where it can be enjoyed by present and future generations, extending the legacy 
of the Carters. 


1 This and other personal comments by Hannah 
and Edward Carter have been taken from 
transcripts of oral histories done in their home on 
17 May 1987 by Rick E. Robinson and Jeanne 
Nakamura, Committee on Human Development, 
University of Chicago, for the University of 
Chicago/J. Paul Getty Museum Aesthetic Research 

2 In a letter to Carter dated 20 Oct. 1981 (Carter files, 
LACMA), Betty Mont noted that twelve of the 
paintings in the catalogue of the Carters’ 
collection, A Mirror of Nature, had come from the 
Monts, “although our names were not mentioned. 
The reason for it is simply that—we enjoyed 
looking for items for you, showing and discussing 
them with you—we preferred to leave the 
business part to the Newhouses and to remain in 
the background.” 

3 Hans Cramer Records, Box 101, Folder 12, 

Getty Research Institute. 

4 Hans Cramer Records, Box 102, Folder 8, 

Getty Research Institute. 

5 Hans Cramer Records, Box 101, Folder 12. 

Getty Research Institute. 

6 Hans Cramer Records, Box 102, Folder 18, 

Getty Research Institute. 

7 Hans Cramer Records, Box 102, Folder 18, 

Getty Research Institute. 

8 Hans Cramer Records, Box 104, Folder 2, 

Getty Research Institute. 

9 Hans Cramer Records, Box 104, Folder 8, Getty 
Research Institute. Cramer, frustrated with Carter 
and Donahue, had written to Roberts to offer the 
Van Goyen on 19 August, the same day he wrote to 
Carter that he had not heard back from him about 
the painting (both Box 104, Folder 2). 

10 Hans Cramer Records, Box 108, Folder 10, 

Getty Research Institute. 

11 Carter files, LACMA archives. 

12 A. B. de Vries 1964 and A. B. de Vries et al. 1968. 

13 Frits Markus to Edward Carter, 14 Oct. 1981, 

Acc. 2016.011, Box 9, Folder “Mirror of Nature— 
Los Angeles,” LACMA archives. 

14 Edward Carter to Frits Markus, 29 Oct. 1981, 

Acc. 2016.011, Box 9, Folder “Mirror of Nature— 
Los Angeles,” LACMA archives. 

15 Hans Cramer Records, Box 112, Folder 4, 

Getty Research Institute. 

16 Hans Cramer Records, Box 113, Folder 3, 

Getty Research Institute. 

17 Hans Cramer Records, Box 112, Folder 2, 

Getty Research Institute. 

18 Regarding the controversy over these paintings, 
see The Hague-San Francisco 1990-91, pp. 

19 “Edward and Hannah Carter,” archives. The 
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. 

20 Hannah Carter to Edward Carter, 6 Oct. 1981, 

Acc. 2016.011, Folder “Mirror of Nature— 

Los Angeles,” LACMA archives. 

21 Edward Carter, remarks for opening reception 
at LACMA for Mirror of Nature, dated 6 Oct. 1981, 
Acc. 2016.011, Folder “Mirror of Nature— 

Los Angeles,” LACMA archives. 

22 Christopher Knight, “An Icy Rodeo Drive? Nope, 
Holland 1620.” Los Angeles Herald Examiner, 14 Oct. 
1981, sec. B, 1. 

23 Russell 1982. 

24 De Montebello 1982. 

25 Russell 1982a. 

26 Russell 1990. 

27 Wilson 1992. 

28 Wilson 1992. 

29 In the will, LACMA was given 25 percent of two 
paintings, Hendrick Avercamp’s Winter Scene on a 
Frozen Canal and Jan van der Heyden’s The 
Herengracht, Amsterdam, Viewed from theLeliegracht. 
The remaining 75 percent of the paintings were 
acquired through the generosity of The 
Ahmanson Foundation and other sources. 

30 Salem-San Francisco-Houston 2011-12, p. 45. 



Joseph Fronek 

Senior Conservator and Head, 
Paintings Conservation 

Elma O'Donoghue 


Paintings Conservation 

Conservation Center 

Los Angeles County Museum of Art 

The Carter collection of landscapes, marines, church interiors, and still-life paintings presents 
the viewer with various styles and ways of painting in seventeenth-century Holland. Artists' 
visions from the beginning of the century to its end make for striking comparisons. One has 
only to look from Ambrosius Bosschaert the Elder (1619) to Jan van Huysum (1724) to see the 
contrast in the depiction of still lifes of flowers. So it is as well with the way the artists worked. 
Their materials and techniques varied, sometimes subtly, from artist to artist, and sometimes 
dramatically, from the beginning to the latter part of the century. 

Conservators and scientists studied each painting in the collection using various analytical 
methods to discover how these artists turned their visions into paintings. The findings 
are summarized in the Technical Reports. The following methods of examination were used. 

Visual and Magnification 

A visual study with and without simple magnification provided physical information regard¬ 
ing the type of support, methods of paint application, colors, and condition. Various 
intensities of light, as well as raking light, aided in seeing the makeup of each painting and its 
surface texture. Higher magnification of a stereomicroscope (up to 45 cross section [xs]) and 
a digital microscope (up to 175 xs) distinguished some layers of ground, paint, and varnish and 
some pigments. 

Ultraviolet (UV) Radiation 

Ultraviolet radiation aided in the description of varnishes, paints, some pigments, and resto¬ 
rations because of the way some materials fluoresce while others do not. 


X-radiography was used to study the paintings. Some X-radiographs have been marked to 
highlight pentimenti and other information discussed in the entries. 

X-ray Fluorescence Spectrometry 

X-ray fluorescence spectrometry (XRF) is a noninvasive technique that was used to determine 
pigments in the paint layers. 

Infrared Reflectography 1 

Infrared reflectography (IRR) has traditionally been used to detect artists' underdrawings. 
However, IRR can also detect damages, working methods, and pentimenti, some of which may 
not be visible with X-radiography. In order to see underdrawing, upper paints must be 
partially transparent in infrared. In addition, underdrawings and grounds must contrast in 
IRR or the drawing will not be visible. Fortunately, these conditions are often found in 
seventeenth-century Dutch paintings. Underdrawings that might have been carried out with 
red chalk or IR-transparent pigments were not visible with our IRR equipment. 


Pigment Identification 

We identified pigments by several means, all of which were nondestructive; that is, no pig¬ 
ment samples were removed from the paintings. Pigments are named in these entries to 
provide insight into the appearance of a passage in a painting and to point out interesting or 
uncommon uses. 

Examination of the Parts of a Painting: 

Support, Ground, Paint Layers, and Surface Coating 

Painting supports in the Carter collection are of four types: wood, canvas, copper, and paper 
on wood. 

Wood Panels 

In northern Europe wood panels for painting were most often made of oak. However, since 
no wood expert was on hand for this study, the type of wood is given only if it has previously 
been identified. 

Wood panels were composed of one or more boards. The reverse was usually beveled to facili¬ 
tate fitting and clamping in a frame. In the entries the orientation of the panels—horizontal 
or vertical—is also the direction of the wood grain. A panel's description includes the 
number of boards making up the panel, each board's width, the thickness of the panel, and 
the presence or absence of bevels. 

Many panels have been affected by changes in relative humidity and temperature, which 
can cause changes in wood dimensions and consequent warping, cracking, and opening of 
joins. Wood-boring insects are another problem. A common treatment for a deteriorated panel 
involved attaching a cradle (lattice of wood) to its reverse to shore up its strength. Before 
attaching a cradle, the panel would most likely be thinned so that it could be flattened 
and separations in the wood mended. The entries note the conditions of the panels and any 
possible treatment such as thinning and cradling. 

A few paintings have a paper support adhered to a wood panel. How this combination came 
about is not always clear: the image on the paper may have begun as a sketch but was adhered 
to panel to be worked up as an oil painting; or the artist may have desired a particular 
appearance that paper on panel gave to a painting. There is also the possibility that a painting 
on paper was adhered to a panel at a later date. 

Only one painting in the collection has a copper support. It is the Bosschaert still life (cat. no. 4), 
which exemplifies how and why metal would have been used as a painting support. The 
hard, nonabsorbent metal surface imparts a rich, enamel-like appearance to the painting and 
is excellent for painting fine details. 


During the seventeenth century the use of canvas for paintings became more common. Canvases 
are described in the entries by type of weave, which for all the paintings in this collection 
appears to be plain weave; by weight—light, medium, or heavy weight; and by regularity of 
the weave—fine, regular, rough, or uneven, for example. Thread count and fiber type, 
which was commonly flax, were not determined at this time. 

Deteriorated or damaged canvases were most often repaired by lining, which is the process of 
attaching a new canvas to the reverse of the painting with an adhesive. The lining type is 
identified here by an estimation of the lining adhesive, such as aqueous based (paste and/or 
glue), wax resin, or synthetic adhesive. 


Paintings on canvas must have a supporting framework, which is identified in the entries. 
Pictures of the period showing artists at work in their studios depict paintings stretched with 
a cord inside a temporary strainer larger than the painting itself. When finished, paintings 
were presumably tacked onto strainers. Like most old master paintings, all canvases in the 
Carter collection were later mounted on expandable stretchers. Stretchers have been produced 
only since the eighteenth century. 

Preparation of Support 

Supports, whether canvas or wood, must be prepared for painting by applying one or more 
grounds. Sometimes the ground covering and paint are thin enough that the color and grain 
of a wood panel shows on the surface, most likely the artist's intention. The colors of the 
grounds, which affect the appearance of the images, and their comparative thickness are noted 
from observation with a digital microscope. However, it would be necessary to take samples 
for cross sections to confirm the observations and to detect any thin imprimatura on top of the 
ground or of any size between the support and the ground. With age and deterioration, 
the wood grain of a panel may become more noticeable, and consequently it is often toned by 
conservators so that it is not disturbing. 


Artists often sketched designs for paintings on the ground. For the purposes of this study, 
"underdrawings" are sketches in drawing media such as black chalk, charcoal or graphite, 
or a fluid medium containing carbon black that is applied by brush. We categorized under¬ 
drawing as (1) freehand or (2) transferred. 

In several paintings in the Carter collection it was found that artists used more than one 
type of underdrawing material; for instance, Simon de Vlieger (cat. no. 34) combined charcoal 
or black chalk with brushed underdrawing. It is possible in some cases that one type of 
underdrawing developed or refined the initial underdrawing, whether it was transferred or 
freehand; see Jan van der Heyden (cat. no. 14). In some paintings, drafting tools such as 
compasses, T squares, and straightedges were used; see Jan van Huysum (cat. no. 17) and 
Emanuel de Witte (cat. nos. 35,36). 

Traditionally, many Dutch painters used underdrawing as a guide that was ultimately covered. 
De Witte (cat. nos. 35,36), for instance, obliterated all of his elaborate underdrawing with 
paint layers. Bosschaert (cat. no. 4), Van Huysum (cat. no. 17), Dirck de Bray (cat. no. 6), and Van 
der Heyden (cat. no. 14) did likewise, disguising, rather than incorporating, the guides that 
assisted their painterly creations. 

It is clear, however, that other seventeenth-century artists were changing the more "tradi¬ 
tional" relationship between underdrawing and painting, and that the term "underdrawing" 
may not always be adequate for describing their technique. In some instances there is no 
clear division between the underdrawing and the painting stages. This was particularly true 
with paintings by three Haarlem school artists, Jan Porcellis (cat. no. 22), Esaias van de Velde 
(cat. no. 31), and Jan van Goyen (cat. nos. 11,12). These artists deliberately left their initial 
brushed designs visible, incorporating them into their final compositions for a more sponta¬ 
neous appearance. 

Sometimes artists brushed in a scheme with dark brown or even a colored paint that may 
not contain any or enough carbon black to show in IRR. In the finished painting the dark or 
sometimes colored lay-in may help create shadows or other features visible in the final 
painting. In the entries, such a "sketch" may be referenced as underpainting or first lay-in. 


Paint Layers 

The entries describe the layers of paint in each painting—the initial lay-in or underpaint, the 
subsequent layers, including opaque paint and impasto, and thin, transparent glazes and 
scumbles. However, cross sections would be necessary to verify the observations made with 
magnification from the surface of the paintings or edges of losses. Cited also are methods 
of paint application, which include type of brush or use of sponge or lichen, as well as physical 
characteristics of paint application, which include brushy marks or grooves left by a stiff 
brush or carefully blended, all of which add to the appearance of a painting. 

Study with X-rays and infrared found pentimenti at every stage of creation, some of which are 
visible with the unaided eye. Artists changed their designs while drawing and while painting. 
And, as they painted they made changes from the drawn design and totally omitted some 
elements of the design. All of these changes are noted as pentimenti in the entries. 

Surface Coatings 

Surface coatings or varnishes can be described by degree of gloss, evenness, saturation, clarity, 
and condition—all of which affect the appearance of a painting. From study with visible 
light and with ultraviolet rays, it may be possible to estimate the type of varnish and its age. 
Usually, any original coating on paintings from this period would have been removed in past 
cleanings, but if any varnish remnants of an earlier coating was found, it has been noted. 

Changes in Dimensions and Proportions of Paintings 

A painting's dimensions may change over time for a number of reasons. An artist may wish 
to expand a composition or make it smaller; deterioration of edges could lead to resizing; or 
an owner might prefer a different format. There are changes in the dimensions in a few 
paintings in the Carter collection. Various clues help one to determine if and how the dimen¬ 
sions of a painting have been altered. Edges of wood panels, for example, were examined 
for saw marks or irregularities. If disturbed, the paint along any edge may be jagged rather 
than uniform or smooth. 

The presence of original tacking margins on canvas paintings should ensure the integrity of 
a painting. Tacking margins are the edges of a painting that fold over the front edge of 
a strainer or stretcher at a ninety-degree angle to be secured with something like tacks to the 
sides of the strainer or stretcher. Tacking margins often carry some ground but usually little or 
no paint. They are vulnerable and usually deteriorate to the point where they can no longer 
support a painting. To correct this deterioration, a painting was usually lined. Unfortunately, 
the tacking margins were often removed before lining. 

Any remnants of tacking margins help to establish the original dimensions. Sometimes a sliver 
of a margin or the impression of the bend from the front edge of the stretcher at the edge 
of the painting remains to help establish the original dimensions. A thin line of ground and 
paint loss usually exists along the line of the bend. Such "lines of loss" are usually visible 
in an X-radiograph, if not to the unaided eye. 


Another frequently detected testament to the original dimensions is cusping or scalloping. 

A canvas secured to a framework will develop scallops along the perimeter of the fabric, with 
the pulled, attached points alternating with the areas in between. Scalloping should be more 
pronounced along the edges of the stretched fabric than toward the center. The presence 
or absence and degree of scalloping along the edges have been used to gauge the integrity of 
a painted canvas. However, reading cusping to determine the original dimensions of a painting 
is complicated and not a precise science. Ernst van der Wetering has explained the uses 
and pitfalls in his essential book on Rembrandt's working methods. 2 Cusping may be visible 
in raking light or in an X-radiograph, and, if present, it is described in a painting's entry. 

To aid the reader in understanding the technical data, images such as X-radiographs and details 
of the painting and microphotographs have been provided. These visual aids bring to view 
some of the normally unseen parts of a painting that are so important to understanding both 
the painting's appearance and the artist's intent. 


1 The capturing of the Carter collection paintings 
with IRR was carried out by Joseph Fronek, 

Elma O’Donoghue, and Yosi Pozeilov, Senior 
Conservation Photographer at LACMA, using the 
Phoenix Digital Infrared Camera made by Indigo 
Systems. This camera has an indium gallium 
arsenide (InGaAs) CCD detector with a high-format 
array of 640 x 512 pixels. It is sensitive in the 
near-infrared range of 9oonm to i695nm. Occasion¬ 
ally interference bandpass filters were used to 
maximize the visibility of some underdrawing 
materials, and noted accordingly in the Technical 
Report. Infrared reflectograms are captured 

as BINS and then exported as 14-bit TIFFs. The 
stitching together of individual IRRs was 
conducted by Pozeilov using Photoshop CS6. This 
equipment was purchased with a generous grant 
from The Ahmanson Foundation. 

2 Van de Wetering 1997, pp. niff. 



























Van der Neer 







Van Borssom 






4 6 









De Bray 



Van Ruisdael and Berchem 


Van de Cappelle 



Van Ruisdael 





Van Ruysdael 





Van Ruysdael 







Van Goyen 



Van de Velde, Adriaen 


Van Goyen 



Van de Velde, Esaias 





Van de Velde, the Younger, 


Van der Heyden 






Van de Velde, the Younger, 




Willem, and workshop 

Van Huysum 



De Vlieger 





De Witte 





De Witte 








Hendrick Avercamp 


Winter Scene on a Frozen Canal , ca. 1620 
Oil on wood, 14% x 25 Vi in. 

(37.2 x 64.8 cm) 

Signed at right, on sled: HA 

Partial gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter 
and purchased with funds provided by The 
Ahmanson Foundation, the Paul Rodman Mabury 
Collection, the William Randolph Hearst Collection, 
the Michael J. Connell Foundation, the Marion 
Davies Collection, Mr. and Mrs. Lauritz Melchior, 
Mr. and Mrs. R. Stanton Avery, the Estate of Anita M. 
Baldwin by exchange, and Hannah L. Carter 


P ainted about 1620, Winter Scene onaFrozen Canal 

captures the festive atmosphere that accompanied 
the freezing of the canals and rivers during the 
late sixteenth and much of the seventeenth century, when 
the Netherlands and parts of Europe experienced the 
so-called Little Ice Age. Disrupting normal traffic by boat, 
the exceptionally cold temperatures turned inland water¬ 
ways into roadways and recreational parks for rich and 
poor. 1 Stalls and tents erected on the ice sold food and drink 
and other wares (fig. 1.1). According to an English visitor 
to Holland: 

In winter the ladies, or better sort of women are... 
taken abroad by their gallants (often) or husbands 
(seldom except when first married) in Polish sleds or 
sledges, richly gilt and carved, covered with embroi¬ 
dery of gold or silver or rich silk or tapestry, drawn by 
a fine horse, richly harnessed.... The ordinary sort 
of people divert themselves ... in winter in skating, 
which they do very much and promiscuously, boys and 
girls, young men and maidens, and some few of the 
better sort are sometimes seen on the ice at that sport. 2 

Avercamp's subtle palette of white tones suggests the 
chill air of the winter day. Beneath the cloudy sky that seems 
to dissolve into the frozen river stretching deep into the 
distance, a cross section of society dressed against the cold 
meets on the ice. In contrast to Esaias van de Velde's Cottages 
and Frozen River (see cat. no. 31), in which villagers go about 
their chores unselfconsciously and are visually integrated 
into the tonal landscape, here clearly defined figures appear 
as a frieze in the foreground, where they perform like 
actors on a stage. On the left, a duck hunter sporting a red 
muffler, a gun on his shoulder, and ducks hanging from 
his belt directs attention to a gypsy fortune-teller, who reads 
the palm of a young woman. A second gypsy converses 
with another woman who is accompanied by a man and 
young girl. Behind them people skate and play coif- —an 
early form of golf—while others fish, chat, or travel across 
the ice by foot, sleds, or in horse-drawn sleighs. 3 

The identities of the elegantly dressed gentleman with 
a sword and greyhound and the woman who wears a mask 
and carries a muff in the right foreground of the Carter 
painting have attracted the attention of scholars. The couple 
also appear in a watercolor by Avercamp of four adults 
and two youths (fig. 1.2) and in a painting in a private collec¬ 
tion in the Netherlands. 4 The inscription on a colored 
facsimile print of the watercolor made by the collector and 
publisher Cornelis Ploos van Amstel (1726-1798), dated 
1766 (Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv. no. RP-P-1944-54), 
identifies the figures as Frederick V (1596-1632) and his wife, 
Elisabeth Stuart (1596-1662), the sister of Charles I of 
England. 5 As elector of Palatine, Frederick was installed as 

king of Bohemia by the Protestant princes in 1619, only to be 
forced out by the army of the Holy Roman Emperor after 
one winter. In 1620 the couple, who became known as the 
Winter King and Queen, and their children took refuge 
in The Hague, where they lived in exile as guests of the Dutch 
government. Ploos van AmsteTs identification of the figures 
was accepted by scholars, including Clara Welcker, who 
argued that Ploos van Amstel was mistaken only about the 
date. She suggested a date of 1626, when the Kampen 
archives record the extended visit of Frederick and Elisabeth, 
as well as Elisabeth's former lady-in-waiting Amalia von 
Solms (1602-1675), who had married the Dutch stadholder 
Frederik Hendrik, prince of Orange (1584-1647), the pre¬ 
vious year. 6 

Scholars now generally dismiss Ploos van Amstel's 
identification of the figures on the far right, noting that 
known portraits of Frederick and Elisabeth do not resemble 
the man and masked woman. 7 Bianca du Mortier notes, 
furthermore, that the costume worn by the woman in the 
right foreground, which dates about 1615 to 1620, would 
have been too outmoded to have been worn by a royal prin¬ 
cess in 1626. She suggests that the figures might be generic 
aristocrats, who represented an influential class in Kampen J 

People similarly dressed in elegant costumes appear 
throughout the painting: the woman riding in the sleigh on 
the left, for example, wears a mask and an expensive ermine- 
trimmed (and possibly lined) cape to protect her from the 
cold. 9 A sword—an attribute of a gentleman of rank—is also 
worn by the skater in red, who uses it for balance. Another 
fashionably dressed man, seen beyond the gypsies, has 
handed his sword and cape to his page as he tries to skate, 
while in the right background a black page dressed in red 
holds the cape and sword of his master. 

Mingling among the patricians are children and 
townsfolk as well as fishermen and people in tattered clothes 
going about their business. Du Mortier suggests that the 
unusual variety of people relates to the social structure of 
Kampen, where, in contrast to cities in the urbanized 
western area of the Netherlands, the aristocracy leased their 
lands to tenants. 10 Gypsies, many of whom had settled in the 
vicinity of Kampen since the fifteenth century, were also 
commonly sighted in the town. 11 Some of the people, like the 
rustic man with a pole in the lower left corner and the boy 
with the ax on the right, stop to observe the activities of 
the wealthy. The social relationship is the opposite of that 
seen in paintings by Jan Brueghel the Elder (1568-1625), 
such as Country Life ( Museo del Prado, Madrid, inv. no. 1444), 
where it is the patricians who observe the activities of the 
countryside. 12 Like Brueghel's paintings, however. Winter 
Scene on a Frozen Canal, which may have been commissioned, 
was intended to appeal to wealthy collectors who would 
have identified with the elegantly dressed people and 
enjoyed the many amusing anecdotes. 


Avercamp, Winter Scene onaFrozen Canal 

The setting of Avercamp's painting is fanciful, contrived 
to create the impression of a deep space that recedes to 
a central point on the horizon. The central focus, relatively 
high horizon, and stage-like presentation of the figures 
recall the winter landscape tradition practiced by Pieter 
Bruegel (ca. 1525-1569), which Hans Bol (1534-1593) and 
David Vinckboons (1576-ca. 1629) took to Amsterdam when 
they fled Antwerp. Although there is no evidence of direct 
contact, it was most likely in Amsterdam, where Avercamp 
apprenticed, that he became familiar with the work of the 
Flemings. While adopting many of the popular motifs from 
these artists in his mature works, including the Carter 
painting, Avercamp lowered the horizon and eliminated 
the trees and buildings in the foreground, replacing them 
with a porous frieze of people. Whereas Bruegel used 
saturated, sometimes rather brown, pigment in the fore¬ 
ground, receding to greenish shades in the center and blue 
in the distance, Avercamp defined his landscape with 
thin applications of light blue, pale yellow, and soft pink 
paint to create the impression of an icy pallor that blurs 
the distant figures and dissolves the horizon into the sky. 13 

The placement of the figures in the background of the 
Carter painting appears on first impression to be random, 
but it is actually carefully planned. Avercamp's ability to 
gauge the relative sizes of the figures accurately suggests his 
familiarity with linear perspective, particularly in the prints 
and books published by Hans Vredeman de Vries (1527- 
ca. 1607). 14 Avercamp creates the impression of deep space by 
carefully positioning the figures and sleighs. Their sug¬ 
gested movement reinforces the receding lines of the dikes 
that visually converge at a central point in the distance. 

In the lower left a driver standing on the runners of a sleigh 
with two passengers cracks his whip over a horse racing 
diagonally across the ice into the distance, where it aligns 
with a similar sleigh near the horizon. Avercamp balances 
the implied movement in the picture by placing the 
fashionable couple skating forward in the center, followed 
by a younger couple dressed in traditional Waterland 
costumes, typical of the province just north of Amsterdam. 
He anchors the composition in the foreground with the 
rustic man with a pole in the lower left corner, the dog on 
the right, and the man dressed in a black jacket and breeches 
who skates across the center foreground parallel to the 
picture plane. 

Avercamp maintained a large collection of figure 
studies and drawings of groups of two or more figures 
taken from life, which he used in various combinations in 
multiple paintings and finished drawings. 15 The figures 
of the man tying his skates and of the man helping a woman 

on with her skates appear frequently in Avercamp's drawings 
and paintings, as do the stylish skater dressed in red balanc¬ 
ing on one foot and the Waterland couple skating behind 
him. The skater in red is closely related to a pen and ink 
drawing in the Royal Library at Windsor Castle (Royal 
Collection Trust, London, inv. no. RCIN 906477). The duck 
hunter, who appears frequently in the same costume but 
in various poses, was undoubtedly a subject Avercamp 
studied from life and manipulated to suit his needs (Rijks- 
museum, Amsterdam, inv. no. RP-T-1886-A-684). Avercamp 
similarly reversed another drawing (Royal Collection 
Trust, London, inv. no. RCIN 906468) 16 for the charming 
vignette of the sled with the child seated on his mother's lap 
who excitedly points to the passing horse-drawn sleigh. 

The figure of the gypsy also appears in a drawing (Hamburger 
Kunsthalle, Hamburg, inv. no. 21647) that may represent 
a scene directly observed or that may itself be based on other 
drawings. The young woman seen in profile as she has 
her fortune read is based on another study from life in red 
and black chalk (Royal Collection Trust, London, inv. no. 
RCIN 906506). 

Attempts to read meaning into Avercamp's paintings 
are inconclusive. His winter scenes were not part of seasonal 
cycles or paired with summer scenes. Typical of seventeenth- 
century landscape painters, he incorporated traditional 
allegorical images of winter without, however, intending 
his paintings themselves to be read as allegories. The old 
man with a basket crossing the ice in the middle distance on 
the right, who frequently appears in Avercamp's paintings, 
refers to the traditional association of winter with the 
end of life. 17 The fortune-teller and the man splayed across 
the ice, blood flowing from his mouth and his coif stick 
and hat on the ice in front of him, refer to fortune and the 
slipperiness of life, the theme of an inscription posthu¬ 
mously attached in the mid-seventeenth century to a popular 
print by Frans Huys (1522-1562) after Pieter Bruegel, Skaters 
by Saint George's Gate in Antwerp, 1556-60: 18 

Oh learn from this scene how we pass through the world. 

Slithering as we go, one foolish, the other wise. 

On this impermanence, far brittler than ice. 13 

In this context, the boy blowing on coals in a brazier behind 
the woman having her fortune read may refer to the fortunes 
of love as well as to winter. 20 Ultimately, however, while 
Avercamp's patrons may have recognized his references to 
the traditional iconography of allegorical prints, they 
would have appreciated his paintings primarily for their 
aesthetic beauty and the wealth and variety of anecdotal 
detail that continue to entertain modern viewers. 


Avercamp, Winter Scene on a Frozen Canal 

Fig. 1.1 

Fig. 1.2 

Fig. 1.1 Bernaerd van den Putte (1528-1580), Scene 
on the Frozen River Scheldt with Antwerp in the Distance, 
1565. Woodcut, 6Y2 x 8% in. (16.4 x 22.5 cm). 
Rijksprentenkabinet, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam 

Fig. 1.2 Hendrick Avercamp, Aan het ijs bijDen Haag 
(On the Ice in The Hague), 1605-34. Watercolor on 
paper, 7% x 9% in. (18.8 x 24 cm). Teylers Museum, 
Haarlem, The Netherlands (inv. no. O+008) 


Avercamp, Winter Scene on a Frozen Canal 



The panel, about Vie inch thick, has 
been thinned and cradled. There are no 
bevels. The wood grain is distinctly visi¬ 
ble on the surface of the painting, which 
also has slight vertical undulations, 
probably a result of its manufacture. 
There is an indentation, perhaps a knot, 
on the right side at the center. The 
panel has a slight convex warp and 
three minor cracks on the left side. 

The thin white ground contains primar¬ 
ily calcium carbonate, and infrared 
reflectography (IRR) 1 revealed several 
lines that are clearly underdrawing 
(fig. TR1.1). These were found in the 
horizon, in some of the buildings on the 
left, and in a boat also on the left side 
of the painting. These cursory lines 
could have been made with a finely 
sharpened black chalk or charcoal stick 
or with graphite. Avercamp used both 
black chalk and graphite in his many 
sketches and drawings as well as in 
other paintings. 2 He painted over some 
of these underdrawn lines as he worked. 

IRR also revealed several pentimenti 
executed with carbon black and covered 
with lead-white paint. Most of the penti¬ 
menti are now visible to the unaided 
eye because of the transparency of the 
aged paint. They are mainly small 
changes in the figures, the most obvious 
being the adjustments to the bustle of 
the black skirt, shoulder, and arms of 
the woman skating with the man in red 
at the center of the painting (figs. TR 1.2; 
TR 1.3). Avercamp began by outlining 
this female figure and applying the 
initial washes (all in carbon black and 
hence visible in IRR). White paint was 
used to cover up the earlier parts, 
and the adjusted figure was painted the 
same way with outlines, washes, and 
more opaque paints. 

The artist developed interesting tech¬ 
niques to create this cold winter scene. 
He applied a thin layer of light-colored 
paint for the ice and sky. The off-white 
color contains mostly lead-white, smalt, 
lead-tin yellow, and copper-based 
pigments. The blue color around the 
holes in the ice was achieved with a thin 
layer of blue paint containing smalt 
and/or black paint on top of the light 
paint layer that was then covered with 

a thin layer of light-colored paint. Some 
areas of the sky have a slight darkish 
tint created with a similar type of 
layering of thin light, dark, and finally 
light paint layers. The tree on the 
left side was painted with a dark, warm 
color, and then some of the branches 
were subdued with light-colored paint. 
The sandwiching of a dark between the 
lights creates an optical effect perfect 
for the representation of a cold, damp 
atmosphere. 3 

Figures and accoutrements were given 
form with dull colors that relate to 
the local color and remain visible to some 
degree as part of the completed image. 
The dull color partially outlines and 
fills the forms to various degrees. For 
example, rust-colored paint used to 
lay in the red-suited figure in the fore¬ 
ground was almost entirely covered 
with local color, a bright red supplied 
by the pigment vermilion-cinnabar. The 
artist highlighted the red with lighter 
colors and glazed with translucent deep 
red paint to form folds and shade. The 
rust-colored paint left visible along 


Avercamp, Winter Scene on a Frozen Canal 

Fig. TR1.2 Detail 

Fig. TR1.3 Pentimento found in the IRR in the 
woman skating. Note the earlier higher bustle and 
shifts in her shoulder and left and right arm. These 
are slightly visible in normal light due to increased 
transparency of the paint as a result of aging. 

some edges of the costume is dull com¬ 
pared with the bright red local color; 
it therefore recedes, turning the fabric 
back in space. In contrast, much of the 
first sketch in dull reddish paint 
remains visible in the pink coat of the 
sleigh driver in the far left foreground. 
The finely brushed outline was filled 
with a thin application of the dull 
reddish paint. Then the artist applied 
only a few strokes of pink. 

As would be expected, the forms become 
more and more sketchy, moving to 
the hazy background, where most of the 
staffage was sketched with the appro¬ 
priate dull color, covered with only 
a few strokes of local opaque color. In 
contrast, thick, bright, flesh-colored 
paint forms the faces and hands of many 
of these figures. 

The technique employed by Avercamp 
in his paintings appears to be related to 
that used in his highly finished water- 
color drawings. In these drawings the 
figures have few changes because he 
already knew exactly how they would 
look from his numerous preparatory 
sketches. The colored drawings were 
done with graphite or chalk and 

developed with penned outlines and 
washes of color, both transparent and 
opaque. He sold the more refined 
drawings as “less expensive” paintings. 

Carefully superimposing the IRR with 
the color image of LACMA’s painting 
showed a somewhat unusual under¬ 
drawing technique: all figures have 
essentially been outlined using colors 
that relate to the final color of the figures 5 
costumes. Avercamp intentionally left 
all of these brushed outlines visible 
as part of the final composition. Only the 
outlines and pentimenti that were 
executed with pigments containing 
carbon black are visible in IRR. Figures 
that have underdrawn outlines of 
browns, yellows, oranges, reds, blues, 
and greens disappear in the IRR because 
these pigments are fairly IR transparent. 
This is similar to the technique the artist 
used in his refined colored drawings. 

The paint layer is in very good condition 
except for minor losses, which have 
been restored. A long diagonal scratch, 
now restored, is located just to the left 
of center, extending from the ice into 
the sky for about 3 inches. There are 
other minor scratches that have been 
repaired. The edges of the painting have 
expected wear from the frame and some 
small losses. A repair about 14 inch wide 
is located to the left of the man standing 
in front of the building. 

The grain of the wood, which must have 
become more visible with aging, has 
been lightly toned. The monogram is 
lightly abraded and may also have some 
toning. The painting had a discolored 
varnish that was removed at LACMA in 
1974. The present acrylic varnish is thin 
and moderately saturating. 


1 A i6oonm interference bandpass filter was used 
for the capturing of the infrared reflectogram. 

2 For black chalk use, see Ice-Skating in a Village, oil 
on wood (Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam), Amsterdam 
2007, vol. 1, p. 53. For graphite used as underdraw¬ 
ing, see Wallert 2010. 

3 Wallert and Verslype 2009-10. 


Avercamp, Winter Scene on a Frozen Canal 

Gerrit Adriaensz. 

The Nieuwezijds Voorblirgwal with the Gift of Mr - an d Mrs - Edward William Carter 





Flower and Tree Markets in Amsterdam, m - 2 °°9-io6.i 

ca. 1675 

Oil on wood, 1 14^ x 18% in. (37 x 47.6 cm) 


Signed lower right, on canal bulkhead: 


Gerrit Berck Hey de 


U sing light and shadow and the sweeping walls of 
the canal, Gerrit Adriaensz. Berckheyde directs 
attention to the recently completed Town Hall of 
Amsterdam, the magnificent edifice shining above the 
shadowed buildings in TheNieuwezijds Voorburgwal with the 
Flower and Tree Markets in Amsterdam. Built on the Dam 
Square, the commercial center of the city, the Town Hall was 
begun in 1648 under the direction of Jacob van Campen 
(1596-1657); inaugurated in 1655, it was not completed until 
after 1665. The city's first monumental building designed in 
the classical style and incorporating freestanding sculptures 
and sculptural reliefs both inside and out, it physically 
and iconographically proclaimed Amsterdam's primacy in 
politics as well as commerce. The building, which the Dutch 
poet Joost van den Vondel (1587-1679) called the Eighth 
Wonder of the World, captured the imagination of the city's 
residents and visitors, who extolled Amsterdam's prosper¬ 
ity, trade, and industry. 2 Cosimo III de' Medici (1642-1723), 
grand duke of Tuscany, who visited Amsterdam in 1668 and 
purchased a painting of the Town Hall by Jan van der 
Heyden (1637-1712), noted in his journal: “Visitors behold¬ 
ing [the new Town Hall] for the first time marvel at the 
sight. It seems as if all four corners of the earth have yielded 
their bounty for the sake of its enrichment to deliver their 
most precious and wondrous treasures to its Harbour.'' 8 

The Town Hall (the present Royal Palace) was the 
subject of numerous paintings by Berckheyde and his 
contemporaries. 4 The most popular view was that of the east 
fagade on the Dam, the broad open square on which the 
Weigh House and the Nieuwe Kerk are also located. In The 
Town Hall on the Dam, Amsterdam, 1693 (Rijksmuseum, 
Amsterdam, inv. no SK-C-101), Berckheyde exaggerated the 
scale of the monument by isolating the magnificent sunlit 
building against the blue sky so that it dominates the 
square and the figures in the shadows of the foreground. 1 
Typically, Berckheyde was more concerned with the archi¬ 
tecture and space than with the activity on the square. 

The Nieuwezijds Voorburgwal with the Flower and Tree 
Markets in Amsterdam depicts the south side and the rear of 
the Town Hall. The best vantage point to achieve this view 
was from the south, looking north along the Nieuwezijds 
Voorburgwal; 6 Berckheyde probably observed the scene 
from the former Weessluis, the small bridge that crossed the 
Nieuwezijds Voorburgwal between the Sint-Luciensteeg 
and the Rosmarijnsteeg. From there the broad quay on the 
left and the gentle curve of the canal provided an unhindered 
view of the massive Town Hall looming over the smaller, 
older buildings. An anonymous drawing from about 1610 to 
1620 reveals that this view was admired even before the 
construction of the new Town Hall. 7 Indeed, photographs 
made in the late nineteenth century testify to its continuing 
appeal. 8 In 1884 the canal, which once connected the Singel 

to Amsterdam's active port on the IJssel, was filled in. 

A tram now transports passengers along the former canal 
between the Spui and the Centraal Station. 

The earliest known rendering of the Nieuwezijds 
Voorburgwal with the new Town Hall is a drawing made 
from the same vantage point about 1665 by Berckheyde's 
contemporary Jan Abrahamsz. Beerstraten (1622-1666) 
(Stadsarchief Amsterdam, Collectie Atlas Splitgerber, image 
file 010001000680). The drawing shows the Town Hall still 
under construction, with scaffolding surrounding the 
cupola and the sculptures of Atlas and the two Virtues not 
yet mounted on the roof. A drawing by Berckheyde of the 
same view with the finished Town Hall (fig. 2.1) is probably 
the original sketch he made on location and later used in 
his studio in Haarlem for the present painting and three of 
the four other versions of the subject. The precision and 
repetition of the major compositional elements in the differ¬ 
ent versions suggest that Berckheyde employed a mechanical 
means to transfer the design from the drawing to the 
paintings. The absence of a grid and the variation in scale of 
the different versions probably indicate, as Jan Peeters has 
suggested, that the artist used lenses to project an image of 
the drawing on the canvas or panel. 8 

The Carter picture is one of five paintings in which 
Berckheyde represented, with variations, the Nieuwezijds 
Voorburgwal with a view of the southwest corner of the Town 
Hall. Only one of the paintings is dated— TheNieuwezijds 
Voorburgswalwith the Flower Market, Amsterdam, of 1686 
(Museo Thyssen-Bornemisza, Madrid, inv. no. 42 [1959.3]) — 
and it is probably the last in the series. 10 Berckheyde's 
interest in accurately recording the architecture makes it 
possible to suggest the chronological order of the paintings 
by the architectural changes along the east side of the canal, 
where the wooden buildings and stepped fagades were 
gradually replaced by taller brick buildings with long-necked 
gables. 11 The earliest paintings are probably those in Saint 
Petersburg (The State Hermitage Museum, Saint Petersburg, 
inv. no. re-958) and Amsterdam (fig. 2.2), in which changes 
from the Beerstraten drawing are evident. The Carter 
painting and the version formerly with Frederik Muller, 
Amsterdam (location unknown), closely follow Berckheyde's 
sketch, which he apparently made to update the composi¬ 
tion. 12 Like the sketch, both paintings include the tall 
building fifth from the right on the east side of the canal 
that replaced the small house represented in the earlier 
versions. The Carter painting relates to the sketch in the 
arrangement of the boats along the side of the canal and the 
lower perspective, which gives the Town Hall greater monu¬ 
mentally than in the earlier versions. 

Berckheyde carefully articulated and varied the 
reflections of the Town Hall and other buildings and trees 
in the canal in each painting. The changes that he made in 


Berckheyde, The Nieuwezijds Voorburgwal with the Flower and Tree Markets in Amsterdam 

the light, vantage point, and details in the five versions 
indicate his interest in spatial relationships. Light plays an 
important role thematically as well as compositionally. 

With the exception of the Madrid version, in which the sun¬ 
light is cast from the left, the west, suggesting it is late 
afternoon or evening, the paintings, including the Carter 
version, portray the light coming from the right, the east. 

In these paintings it is morning. Rising in the east, the sun 
illuminates the south side of the magnificent Town Hall 
and the roofs of the buildings along the east side of the 
canal, casting their facades in shadow and filling the wide 
quay on the west side with sunlight. The cool gray tonality 
and muted definition of details in the shadows create the 
impression of an early morning scene. 

The Carter painting shares many elements with the 
version in the Amsterdam Museum, but the differences are 
significant. In the painting in Amsterdam, the sun is 
slightly higher than in the Carter painting so that it lights 
the tops of the trees, subtly illuminates the facades of the 
buildings with reflected light, and creates a diagonal line of 
light along the road on the east side of the canal. The crisp 
reflections of the buildings in the water are interrupted by 
a boat unloading supplies that is cutting across the fore¬ 
ground parallel to the picture plane. By repositioning the 
boat and aligning the potted plants along the west side 
of the canal and extending the line of boats and deepening 
the shadow across the east side of the canal in the Carter 
painting, Berckheyde opened the foreground and created 
a more dramatic image that emphasizes the sweep of the 
canal toward the sunlit Town Hall, the reflection of which 
forms a strong vertical accent. Sunlight draws attention 
to the distant bridge over which a horse-drawn cart travels, 
probably returning from the Weigh House on the Dam. 

In the Thyssen-Bornemisza painting, Berckheyde repeated 

the open foreground, but by shifting the light and incorpo¬ 
rating the tall trees that he had earlier suppressed, he 
framed the illuminated buildings along the east side of the 
canal and their reflections in the still canal. 

Although secondary to Berckheyde’s interest in archi¬ 
tecture and space. The Nieuwezijds Voorhurgwal with the 
Flower and Tree Markets in Amsterdam and the other versions of 
the scene accurately suggest the activity of the canal. The 
quay on the west side was the location of the flower and tree 
markets, which took place every Monday during the spring 
and summer. 13 According to an eighteenth-century source, 
which notes that the flower and tree markets were more 
than one hundred years old, merchants were allowed to 
set up the markets Sunday afternoon after three o’clock. 14 
The position of the sun on the right side of the painting 
indicates that the scene takes place on Monday morning. 
The tree market sold various kinds of young trees produced 
by grafting and grown in peat in the vicinity of Alkmaar 
and Beverwyk and then brought to Amsterdam by barge. 
Just north of the tree market was the flower market. On the 
shaded east side of the canal was the pipe market. A canal 
barge provided daily service between Amsterdam and Gouda, 
where the clay pipes were made. 

Berckheyde’s five versions of the painting indicate the 
success of the image. Like his views of the facade of the Town 
Hall, they celebrate Amsterdam as the major commercial 
center of the world. Although not visible, in the pediment 
on the back of the building, beneath the sculpture of 
Atlas supporting the globe, is a marble relief by the Flemish 
sculptor Artus (Arnoldus) Quellinus (1609-1668) that 
portrays the continents paying homage to Amsterdam. On 
either side stand Temperance and Vigilance, safeguarding 
not only the ships at sea but also the local merchants along 
the Nieuwezijds Voorhurgwal. 


Berckheyde, The Nieuwezijds Voorhurgwal with the Flower and Tree Markets in Amsterdam 

Fig. 2.1 

Fig. 2.2 

Fig. 2.1 Gerrit Adriaensz. Berckheyde, View of the 
Flower Market (aka View of theNieuwezijds Voorburgwal 
with the Town Hall in Amsterdam), ca. 1670-75. 
Graphite, partially strengthened with pen and ink, 
6% x 10% in. (17 x 27.7 cm). Koninklijk 
Oudheidkundig Genootschap, Amsterdam 
(inv. no. KOG-AA-2-13-261) 

Fig. 2.2 Gerrit Adriaensz. Berckheyde, The Nieuwezijds 
Voorburgwal with the Flower Market, ca. 1660-80. Oil on 
canvas, 17% x 24 in. (45 x 61 cm). Amsterdam Museum 
(inv. no. SA 7455) 


Berckheyde, The Nieuwezijds Voorburgwal with the Flower and Tree Markets in Amsterdam 



Fig. TR2.1 Raking-light photograph of painting 
showing textures 

Fig. TR2.2 Infrared reflectogram 

The wood panel is approximately 14 
inch thick with bevels on all sides 
except the top. The central area of the 
bottom edge of the painting has lost 
approximately kL6th inch of wood and 
paint. The panel is in good condition 
and it is planar. 

The panel has a fairly thin, dark red- 
brown ground that affects the tonality 
of the painting, and paints vary from 
thin, dark-colored translucent paints to 
opaque lights. Thick paint shows 
brushstrokes. Architectural details, such 
as the surrounds of the windows on the 
Town Hall, are in relief. The thick 
varnish obscures much of the liveliness 
of the surface, but a photograph taken 
with raking light gives some sense of 
the textures (fig. TR2.1). 

X-radiography and IRR(fig. TR2.2) 
revealed both underdrawing and 
numerous pentimenti. The underdraw¬ 
ing in the buildings is composed of 
thin, dark, and fairly solid lines and 
could have been executed with any of 
the following: graphite pencil, 1 
metalpoint, pen, or brush with medium 

containing carbon-black pigment. 2 
However, because there is no evidence 
of perspective guidelines or vanishing 
points in the underdrawing, the 
composition may also have been trans¬ 
ferred from a drawing. 3 The artist 
adjusted the roof, chimneys, and the 
figure of Atlas on the Town Hall with 
dense paint, which is visible even to 
the unaided eye. 

The most significant changes show that 
Berckheyde reduced the initially larger 
size of the Town Hall and shifted the 
perspective slightly. These pentimenti 
are dark and appear to be brushed 
applications of paint that contains 
carbon-black pigment. 4 However, we 
were unable to determine just how 
far the artist developed the earlier 
composition before abandoning it. Did 
he just apply thin, dark washes that 
were part of the underdrawing stage or 
were these dark areas oil paint? 

Judging from its appearance in the 
X-radiograph and IRR, at one time the 
figure of Atlas had a greater hunch and 
a smaller globe on its back. Below 
and to either side of Atlas there were 
originally two smaller but similarly 

sized sculptures; the one on the left was 
painted out when the artist made the 
building smaller (figs. TR2.3,2.4). 5 
There was a stepped roof on the small 
building on the far side of the Town 
Hall, also visible in IRR. The domed 
cupola was initially larger and posi¬ 
tioned farther to the right, suggesting 
that the artist’s view was originally 
closer to the building. The shape of the 
cupola was also slightly different, 6 and 
the chimneys on the roofline were 
initially larger, corresponding with the 
earlier cupola. 

Berckheyde applied light blue paint 
for the sky, leaving reserves for the 
buildings. The buildings in shadow 
along the far side of the canal were 
painted with thin, translucent, dark- 
to-light scumbles; thick, opaque details 
were applied over dark-colored paint. 

It is the dark ground showing through 
the translucent paints that creates the 
rich shadows. The sunlit architecture of 
the Town Hall is described with dense 
yellow paint applied over the dark 


Berckheyde, The Nieuwezijds Voorburgwal with the Flower and Tree Markets in Amsterdam 

Fig.TR.2.3 Detail 

Fig. TR2.4 IRR detail showing removal of the 
sculpture on the lower left below Atlas and changes 
in the roofline at the upper right 

ground. The gray shadows and details 
on the building were applied over the 
yellow paint. A layer of dark gray 
applied over a layer of light gray paint 
creates the illusion of sunlight striking 
the glass of the windows. 

The buildings in the background, the 
bridge, and the pavement in the left fore¬ 
ground were almost finished when 
the trees were painted. The X-radiograph 
reveals that the building on the left side 
of the canal was finished before the tall 
chimney was added over the roof 
tiles. The staffage was added when the 
cityscape was close to completion. 

The surface coating is synthetic and 
appears hazy and greenish in ultraviolet 
light. Thick varnish makes it difficult to 
truly assess the condition of the painting. 
The surface has some abrasion, and 
there are a number of restored losses 
along the top edge. The wood grain, 
which had become more apparent, has 
been toned to be less noticeable. 

The signature appears reinforced to 
some degree. 


1 Berckheyde used graphite in the drawing View 
of the Nieuwezijds Voorburgwal with the Town Hall in 
Amsterdam, collection Atlas Van Eck, Koninklijk 
Oudheidkundig Genootschap, Amsterdam, inv. 
no. W13-261. 

2 Lines produced by black chalk or charcoal lines 
would be powdery in texture, and this was not 
characteristic of the lines in this underdrawing. 

3 Jan Peeters suggests that the four Town Hall 
paintings by Berckheyde, all very close with only 
simple differences in staffage, may have been 
transferred from one drawing via camera obscura. 
This might explain the size differences and why 
there are no transfer indications (grids, blackened 
backing, etc.) on the drawing itself. Amsterdam 

1 997 , p- 97- 

4 Carbon black appears dark in the IRR. 

5 The sculpture on the left is present also in the 
drawing at the Koninklijk Oudheidkundig 
Genootschap; see n. 1 above. 

6 The shape might correspond to the cupola’s 
being surrounded by a scaffold. 


Berckheyde, The Nieuwezijds Voorburgwal with the Flower and Tree Markets in Amsterdam 





Anthonie van Borssom 


Panoramic Landscape near Rhenen 
with theHuis terLede, ca. 1666 
Oil on canvas, 20 x 2 S 15 /i 6 in. 
(50.8x65.9 cm) 

Signed lower right: A Bor/[illegible] 16 [illegible] 

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter 


F ormerly attributed to Adriaen van de Velde (1636- 

1672), Panoramic Landscape nearRhenen with theHuis ter 
Lede is now accepted as a work by the Amsterdam 
landscape painter Anthonie van Borssom. A. B. de Vries and 
Egbert Haverkamp-Begemann recommended the attribu¬ 
tion when the Carters purchased the painting in 1971. In 
1981 the authors of A Mirror ofNature were the first to publish 
the painting as a work by Van Borssom. The discovery of 
a partial signature on the lower right of the Carter landscape 
confirms the attribution to Van Borssom. 1 

The panoramic view of a broad river valley from the 
prospect of a hill and the tightly rendered style of the Carter 
painting compare closely with Van Borssom's signed paint¬ 
ing River Landscape near Cleves with Fortress Schenkenschans, High 
andLowElten, about 1666 (Museum Kunstpalast, Dusseldorf, 
inv. no. M 121). In the Carter painting. Van Borssom marks 
the progression across the landscape into the distance by 
alternating patterns of light and shadow, a feature typical of 
his paintings of the 1660s, when he was influenced by the 
panoramic landscapes of Philips Koninck (1619-1688). In his 
two paintings of Schenkenschanz, located near Emmerich, 
where the Rhine splits into the Waal and the Lower Rhine, 
light draws the viewer's attention from the sunlit fore¬ 
ground with cattle to the distant river as it sweeps through 
the landscape. 2 In the Carter painting, the dark foreground, 
the reflection of the river that stretches across the com¬ 
position, and the horizontal layering of clouds accentuate 
the broad panorama. Narrow horizontal striations painted 
thinly with a soft brush in subtle shades of gray, green, 
and blue define the middle and distant landscape and sug¬ 
gest light filtered by the passing clouds. Dark trees and 
shadows intersect the panorama and lead the eye from the 
foreground into the distance, where a castle stands above 
the flatland to the right of center, and the village of Kesteren 
lies farther left. The single traveler and the small herd of 
cattle silhouetted against the river help to tie the foreground 
to the distance. Van Borssom further integrated the com¬ 
position by continuing the diagonal line of the rutted road 
from the left foreground through the row of shrubbery 
leading to the castle, complemented by the parallel place¬ 
ment of the tributary of the river on the far rights 

The castle in the Carter painting is the Huis ter Lede, 
also known as Huis te Lynden. The ancestral home of 
the Van Lynden family, it was apparently well known in 
the seventeenth century. An engraving of“'t Huys ter Lee” 
was published by Christophe Butkens in Les annales 
genealogiques de la maison de Lynden and later included in 
Abraham Rademaker's Kabinetvan nederlandsche outheden en 
gezichten of 1725J 

In the seventeenth century, the Huis ter Lede was 
owned by the counts of Waldeck-Piermont and Culenborch, 
one of whom may have commissioned the painting from 
Van Borssom. 5 The artist is known to have depicted at 
least one other specific country house, the hunting lodge 

Toutenburg in Maartensdijk, located like Huis ter Lede in 
the province of Utrecht. 6 Borssom's portrayal of a specific 
aristocratic residence in Panoramic Landscape nearRhenen with 
theHuis ter Lede recalls the late sixteenth-century Flemish 
landscape paintings and prints of the seasons by Lucas 
van Valckenborch the Elder (ca. 1535-1597)/ which were 
followed by the often large paintings by Jan Brueghel the 
Elder (1568-1625) of Castle Mariemont for the Archduke 
Albrecht and his wife, the Infanta Isabella, joint governors 
of the Spanish Netherlands. 8 

However, in contrast to the high horizons, imagined 
landscapes, and artificial color schemes of the Flemish 
examples, which serve as stage sets for genre portraits of the 
residents and their entourages enjoying country life, 
the low horizon and gentle luminous light that infuses Van 
Borssom's composition, as well as the absence of artificial 
framing devices or significant staffage, create the naturalis¬ 
tic impression of an actual flat landscape that stretches 
from the foreground far into the distance. 

The Huis ter Lede was located near the town of Rhenen 
on the Lower Rhine, where the Utrecht hills abruptly end 
and the flat landscape of the Neder-Betuwe extends for miles. 9 
According to an eighteenth-century pocket travel guide: 

“On the west side [traveling from Wageningen to Rhenen] 
there is a very high mountain, which is frequently climbed 
to gaze out over one of the finest views over the Rhine, 
as well as the Neder-Betuwe, and the Rheensche Veenen.'' 10 

In the seventeenth century a platform known as the 
Koningstafel, or King's Table, was built between Rhenen 
and Wageningen on top of the Grebbeberg, which provided 
the greatly admired views and could be seen for miles 
standing above the flat valley. 11 Frederick V (1596-1632), 
elector Palatine, the so-called Winter King who lived in exile 
in The Hague and Rhenen, reportedly enjoyed resting 
there while hunting on the mountain. The Koningstafel, 
represented in 1646-48 by Aelbert Cuyp (1620-1691) in 
Two Horsemen on a Ridge (private collection. New York), 12 was 
undoubtedly the place from which Van Borssom drew 
the view of Huis ter Lede that he later used for the Carter 
painting. The village of Ter Lee, which appears to the left 
of Huis ter Lede in the Carter landscape, can be seen in the 
distance in the Cuyp painting. 

Van Borssom's attraction to the view from the 
Koningstafel is documented by two drawings. A signed 
pencil and wash drawing in the Graphische Sammlungen 
der Klassik Stiftung Weimar (inv. no. KK 4801) represents 
a view closely related to that in the Carter painting. 11 
A second drawing signed by Van Borssom represents a group 
of well-dressed men and women who have climbed the 
hill to picnic around the Koningstafel and enjoy the famous 
view (The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, inv. 
no. 2005.418.5) 14 in a panoramic landscape that is remarkably 
similar to that represented in the Carter painting. 


Van Borssom, Panoramic Landscape nearRhenen with theHuis ter Lede 



Fig. TR3.1 X-radiograph showing tack holes and the 
old rollover edge 

The painting is on a medium-weight, 
plain-weave canvas lined to a similar 
type canvas with an aqueous adhesive. 
The stretcher is slightly larger than 
the original painting. Tacking margins 
have been removed from all but the 
bottom edge, where the margin was 
folded out and painted to extend 
the painting by about 14 to Vz inch. The 
X-radiograph reveals some tacking 
holes in the margin and a line of loss 
(fig. TR3.1). It also reveals cusping 
on all sides of the canvas. 

The canvas has a thin red ground with 
a somewhat thicker gray one on top. 

The sky is fairly directly painted with 
white, gray, and blue paints. Exami¬ 
nation of the Van Borssom with infrared 
reflectography (IRR) did reveal some 

cursory dark lines for the horizon and 
the fields (fig. TR3.2). However, most of 
these lines were also somewhat visible 
in normal light, so it was not possible to 
say with certainty that they were 
underdrawn. As found in the work of 
other seventeenth-century Dutch 
landscape painters, such as Esaias van 
de Velde (cat. no. 31) and Philips 
Koninck (cat. no. 19), Van Borssom may 
have been incorporating his under¬ 
drawn lines into the final painting, 
leaving them visible as part of the com¬ 
position. It was not possible to determine 
if the lines were brushed or executed 
with a dry medium such as black chalk 
or charcoal. 

The artist laid out the landscape with 
dark, translucent paint and then 
developed the forms with local colors 
and glazes. The X-radiograph appears 
fairly uniform with indistinct forms. 

The landscape was almost finished 
before the staffage was added. The cows 
were laid in with a middle tone of local 
color to which the lights and darks were 
applied. Dark brown paint was used 
for the signature. Only the first part of 
the signature is legible. 

The painting reads well, although 
surface paints show signs of abrasion. 
There are scattered restorations, 
including a large one in the upper right 
corner of the sky about 2 Vz inches in 
diameter. There is also some restoration 
along the edges, especially at the 
bottom. A dark somewhat irregular 
crackle pattern exists throughout the 


Van Borssom, Panoramic Landscape nearRhenen with theHuis terLede 

Fig. TR3.2 Infrared reflectogram 

painting as well as some circular crack 
patterns in the sky, where the canvas 
was probably impacted from the 
reverse. Perimeter stretcher cracks are 
also visible. Shallow, vertical waves 
visible in raking light suggest that the 
painting may have been rolled at 
one time. The lining has flattened the 
painting to some degree. 

The varnish, which is fairly clear and 
saturating, appears to be a synthetic. It 
has a dense fluorescence in ultraviolet 
light that may hide some restoration 


Van Borssom, Panoramic Landscape nearRhenen with theHuis terLede 





Ambrosius Bosschaert 
the Elder 


Bouquet of Flowers on a Ledge, 1619 Gift of Mr - an d Mrs. Edward W. Carter 

Oil on copper, 11 x 9 y 16 in. (27.9 x 23 cm) M - 2003 - 1 ° 8 ' 7 

Signed and dated lower right, on the sill: 1 AB1619 


A ccording to his daughter Maria, Ambrosius 

Bosschaert the Elder died at the home of Frederik 
van Schurman (1564-1623) in The Hague in 1621J 
The artist had traveled from his home in Breda to the court 
city to deliver a blompot (flower pot) to Schurman, wine 
steward ( bottelier ) of Prince Maurits, for which he was paid 
1,000 guilders. 3 That Schurman was willing to pay such 
an exceptionally high fee for the painting reveals the esteem 
with which he held the artist, as well as the value he placed 
on the subject, a vase of flowers, each of which was so 
meticulously rendered that it could be clearly identified 
and admired. 1 

Bouquet of Flowers on a Ledge is one of the most beauti¬ 
fully painted and best-preserved examples of the perfectly 
balanced, symmetrical bouquets that are the hallmark 
of Bosschaert’s oeuvre. Executed with orderly layering of 
paint and glazes applied to a prepared copper plate with 
brushstrokes that seem to melt away, the petals of the tulips 
appear like satin, while the delicate, transparent wings 
of the dragonfly perched on the yellow iris dissolve against 
the sky. Bosschaert carefully defined each blossom, shell, 
and insect according to its individual color and form. 
Although the flowers within the evenly lit bouquet cast no 
shadows, shadows of the glass rummer decorated with 
thorn prunts, 5 the shells, and the single carnation are visible 
on the ledge. The firm materiality of the bouquet and 
objects placed on the ledge contrasts with the soft, atmo¬ 
spheric rendering of the distant river landscape and sky. The 
almost surreal quality of the painting anticipates the paint¬ 
ings of Rene Magritte (1898-1967) three centuries later. 

During the first decades of the seventeenth century, 
Bosschaert and a number of his contemporaries, notably Jan 
Brueghel the Elder (1568-1625), Jacob de Gheyn II (ca. 1565- 
1629), and Roelandt Savery (1576-1639), represented similar, 
symmetrical, carefully defined still lifes of flowers on 
a ledge either in a niche or against a dark background. The 
Carter painting is one of only six known still lifes in which 
Bosschaert juxtaposed a bouquet on a ledge against 
a cloud-streaked sky and distant landscape, as if, as Lawrence 
Goedde has observed, “suggesting its relation to that world 
as an epitome of it.” 6 In all but the Carter painting, the 
bouquet is framed by an arched window with a view to 
a distant landscape (fig. 4.1). 7 There was no precedent in paint¬ 
ing for representing a bouquet against a distant landscape, 
suggesting, as Sam Segal was the first to recognize, that 
Bosschaert derived this format from earlier print sources, 
such as the more elaborate Vase of Flowers in an Open Niche, 
1599, engraved by Hendrik Hondius (1573-ca. 1649) after 
a design by Elias Verhulst (before 1570-after 1620). 8 

The realistic appearance of Bosschaert’s bouquet is 
a conceit. Like his contemporaries, he may have occasionally 
painted individual flowers directly from life (especially the 
common flowers) but never an assembled bouquet. Indeed, 

the actual flowers he depicts in the Carter bouquet, and 
others, bloom at different times of the year: the yellow 
fritillaria, the tulips, iris, daffodil, and red-and-white 
liverwort (a kind of anemone) are harbingers of spring, 
while the roses and carnation bloom in mid- to late summer. 1 
The precise and independent description of each of the 
blossoms, which cast virtually no shadows within the 
bouquet, and the repetition of certain flowers in his other 
paintings—such as the pink rose in the lower right of 
the present picture that reappears in reverse in Bosschaert’s 
painting of 1621 in the National Gallery of Art, Washington, 
DC (inv. no. 1996.35.1) —suggest that he relied on drawings 
or prints of individual flowers as guides. Evidence of under¬ 
drawing and, in places, pouncing in the Carter painting and 
others indicates that he transferred images of individual 
flowers and possibly complete compositions onto his panels 
(see Technical Report). 

Although none is known, Bosschaert probably made 
drawings of actual flowers from life but also undoubtedly 
relied on naturalistic depictions of flowers in contemporary 
florilegia, which both served as models and, at times, were 
apparently used for transfer. 10 The most famous of these 
were Florilegium, published in Frankfurt in 1612 as a nursery 
catalogue by the Amsterdam merchant of exotica Emanuel 
Sweerts (1552-1612),® and HortusFloridus, published in 
Utrecht in 1614 by Crispijn van de Passe II (1589-1670). 12 Both 
books enjoyed enormous success and were republished 
numerous times. Praised for their lifelike illustrations based 
on direct observation of living or recently cut flowers, 
florilegia advertised a merchant’s stock or celebrated the 
beauty and diversity of a famous garden. 13 For his commem¬ 
orative album, Hortus Eystettensis (Nuremberg, 1613), for 
example, the prince-bishop of Eichstatt, Johann Konrad von 
Gemmingen (1561-1612), had live flowers from his garden 
sent in boxes each week to artists, who made beautiful 
watercolor drawings that were later translated into prints 
showing the various stages of a flower. 14 

By the early seventeenth century, the desire for scien¬ 
tifically accurate depictions of plants and flowers from Asia, 
the Americas, and Africa was widespread. Scientists, collec¬ 
tors, and courtiers throughout Europe eagerly sought 
and exchanged written and visual information about new 
species of plants and actual specimens for their gardens. 
Middelburg, one of the major ports of the Dutch East India 
Company (Verenigde Oostindische Compagnie, VOC), 
was an important garden center at the beginning of the seven¬ 
teenth century, when Bosschaert was in the city. 15 Distinct 
from the medieval gardens in which plants were grown 
for medicinal purposes, the famous botanical gardens estab¬ 
lished in Middelburg by the botanist Matthaeus Lobelius 
(1538-1616) 16 and at the University of Leiden by Carolus 
Clusius (Charles de l’Ecluse, 1526-1609), 17 were extensions 
of Kunst- und Wunderkammers that sought to include the 


Bosschaert the Elder, Bouquet of Flowers on aLedge 

most exotic and rare specimens. The tulip, which is today 
so closely associated with Holland, was first imported 
from Turkey to Europe in the mid-sixteenth century and 
popularized by Clusius. 

The mysterious ability of a tulip bulb to change from 
year to year (later attributed to a virus) made these flowers 
among the most prized possessions of collectors. By 1623, 
just two years after Frederik van Schurman paid Bosschaert 
1,000 guilders for his “flower pot” and when the average 
annual income in the Netherlands was 150 guilders, a single 
bulb of the highly prized Semper Augustus sold for 1,000 
guilders. By 1637 the price had risen to 10,000 guilders, 
equivalent to the cost of a house on a canal in the center of 
Amsterdam with gardens and coach house. 18 In the same 
year, however, the speculation in tulips had reached such 
a height that the inevitable happened: the market crashed. 
Although the collapse of the tulip market financially ruined 
many speculators—among others, the painter Jan van 
Goyen (1596-1656)—the fascination with the tulip and other 
flowers continued throughout the century. 

The number of similar bouquets painted by Bosschaert 
and his contemporaries attests to their enduring popularity 
and suggests that realistic images of flowers and shells 
accurately rendered in three dimensions and natural colors 
were themselves sources of pleasure and could substitute 
for the actual objects. Referring to a variegated bouquet 
he had recently begun in 1606, Bosschaert's contemporary 
Jan Breughel the Elder wrote to his patron Federico (1564- 
1631), Cardinal Borromeo, archbishop of Milan, “[the paint¬ 
ing] will succeed admirably: not only because it is painted 
from life but also because of the beauty and rarity of various 
flowers which are unknown and have never been seen here 
before.” 19 Although common today, in the early seventeenth 
century, the tulips, yellow fritillaria, 20 red-and-white- 
striped liverwort, and the daffodil depicted in the Carter 
painting were grown from bulbs imported from Asia. 

The black-and-white Conus marmoreus shell came from East 
India, and the yellow Polymitapicta from Cuba. 21 Bosschaerfs 
contemporaries marveled not only at the rarity of the objects 
but also at the skill it took to depict the flowers, shells, 
and the details of dewdrops and insects so realistically. Stories 
of ancient artists who could deceive animals with the realism 
of their images were well known. The delicate dragonfly 
perched on the yellow iris and the droplets of moisture on the 
leaves in Bosschaerfs painting indeed recall the story of 
Zeuxis, who painted with such dexterity that he was able to 
fool the birds who flew to his painting in search of fruit. 22 

In the past, referencing biblical verses and emblems 
such as Roemer Visscher's 1614 print representing tulips, 

Een dwaes en zijngeltzijn haestghescheijden (A Fool and His Money 

Are Soon Parted) (fig. 4.2), scholars have interpreted flower 
still lifes such as Bouquet of Flowers on a Ledge as warnings 
about the transience of earthly life 23 and the vanity of 
collecting tulips and shells. 24 Scholars have deconstructed 
bouquets and interpreted each individual flower, insect, 
and dewdrop emblematically, in an effort to show that 
the intention of the artist was to instruct the viewer to stop 
and contemplate God, because the life of man, like that of 
flowers, is brief. The negative emblematic reading of 
individual flowers and insects is, however, questionable 
when no specific inscription or reference is included. 21 

In his preface to Florilegium, Sweerts reflects a differ¬ 
ent, more positive attitude. Acknowledging that man's life, 
like that of flowers, is brief, he praises God's greatness in 
providing such wondrous flowers for the enjoyment of man. 
Sweerts notes that he was motivated to produce the book so as 

to display with it, to all eyes, the infinite power of 
God, in which one can look as in a mirror, and thereby 
be moved to understand how short and trivial life is; 
and on the other hand, how great is God's Mercy, since 
he shares with us worthless creatures His manifold 
beautiful, wonderful creations, the flowers, for our 
refreshment and comfort. These give us to know that 
man's life is nothing else than a flower of the fields, 
which withers soon.... Through them shall we be 
awakened and warned to laud and praise his Divine 
goodness. 26 

One often finds references made by both Protestants 
and Catholics to the two books by which one knows God— 
the Bible and nature. The Garden of Eden and flowers 
are said to be expressions of God's creation. The title page of 
Hortus Eystettensis, for example, refers to the bishop's view 
of the garden and the book as a living or pictorial version of 
Psalm 150, a tribute to the creator of all things.® In paint¬ 
ings in which the bouquet is set against an extensive 
landscape, the artist seems to extend the metaphor to the 
world beyond. 

The acquisition of Bosschaert's paintings had much to 
do with the desire to possess the beautiful flowers and 
shells that appear in them but that were difficult and expen¬ 
sive to own. Like the Hortus Eystettensis, an expression of 
Johann Konrad von Gemmingen's passion for beautiful 
flowers, both common and exotic, and his desire to extend 
their presence beyond their brief life, Bosschaert's bouquets 
were a way of celebrating and preserving the beauty of the 
flowers through the dark winter days. 


Bosschaert the Elder, Bouquet of Flowers on aLedge 

Fig. 4-1 

Fig. 4.2 

Fig. 4.1 Ambrosius Bosschaert the Elder, Vase of 
Flowers in a Window, ca. 1618. Oil on panel, 

25 Ya x 18 Vs in. (64 x 46 cm). Mauritshuis. Bequest 
of Arnoldus Andries des Tombe, The Hague, 1903 
(inv. no. 679) 

Fig. 4.2 Roemer Visscher (1547-1620), Fen dwaes 
enzijngeltzijn haestghescheijden (A Fool and His Money 
Are Soon Separated), 1614. Engraving, 3% x z 3 /s in. 
(9.5 x 6 cm). Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam (inv. no. 
BI- 1893 - 3539 - 11 ) 


Bosschaert the Elder, Bouquet of Flowers on a Ledge 



Fig. TR4.1 Reverse of the copper panel with some 
oxidation, as well as adhesive from old labels and tape 

Fig. TR4.2 Digital micrograph (loox magnification) 
of the lower left flower of the blue spray of 
geraniums showing the blue base layer glazed with 
violet lake 

The support is a sheet of copper with 
a thickness of about ki6th inch. Because 
the smooth, hard metal support does 
not absorb the oil medium, it provides 
a rich, enamel-like surface that is an 
excellent base for painting fine details. 
The support is in good condition. The 
plate has slight undulations but 
appears quite flat under normal viewing 
conditions. The lower right corner was 
bent at one time and restored (fig. TR4.1). 

The ground appears to be gray and 
thinly applied. White paint containing 
mostly lead white was applied over the 
gray ground from the upper edge of 
the painting to at least the top of the 
ledge. Over this white layer the artist 
applied the blue paint of the sky, which 
contains smalt and possibly other 
blue pigments, leaving reserves for the 
white clouds. He applied thin blue 
and green paint layers for the trees, city, 

and water. The ledge was laid in with 
gray-brown paint containing ocher 
and umber pigments, which was worked 
up with shadows and highlights. 

The bouquet is remarkable for its fine 
details and the layering of paint, 
including glazes and scumbles, which 
require a deep understanding of colors 
and pigments. The paint was mostly 
applied in thin layers ranging from 
almost opaque to translucent. For exam¬ 
ple, the tiny blue flowers (geraniums) 
at the upper left were laid in with an 
opaque blue-colored paint over the 
painted sky. The blue of the flower was 
subsequently glazed with a translucent 
violet lake that was applied thickly 
for the dark shadows but more thinly to 
create the transition to medium and 
light tones. While these layers of paint 
are not readily obvious to the unaided 
eye, magnification helps to distinguish 
them (fig. TR4.2). Brushstrokes are only 
evident in some of the pasty paints: 
for example, the whitest parts of the 
large white rose or the light-colored 
stripes of the large tulip at the left. The 
thorns on the rose stems and the legs 
of the insects were painted with very 
fine brushes. 

The complexity of the painting can be 
better understood by looking closely at 
the individual flowers. For example, 
Bosschaert painted the opaque 
standards of the yellow iris with a thin 
base layer of mostly lead-tin yellow 
mixed with lead white over the layer of 
blue sky. Then he applied thicker paint 
with proportionately more yellow 
pigment using a variety of brushstrokes 
and even little dots to give form and 
volume. Light blue or violet paint 
spotted along the edges of the iris’s 
standards defines the fluting that is 
typical of this flower. Finally, a rust- 
orange glaze achieves the fine modeling 
from dark to light. The blue sky shows 
through the transparent falls of the 
iris. The veins of the falls were painted 
with a rust-colored translucent paint 
with tiny touches of light violet paint. 

Numerous colors of paint, direct and 
layered, and various brushstrokes create 
the large striped tulip on the left. 

The artist applied thin white paint that 


Bosschaert, Bouquet of Flowers on a Ledge 

Fig. TR4.3 IRR detail of the lower right corner with 
signature, showing damage to the copper panel and 

transmits the blue of the sky and dense 
stripes of white, yellow, and crimson. 

He scumbled light pink and glazed red 
lake so thinly over the thin white layer 
that the blue color of the sky under¬ 
neath visually affects the final color, 
which verges on violet. The crimson 
paint applied more densely along the 
edges of the petals was feathered with 
the tip of a brush and is visible only 
with magnification. Nevertheless, in 
normal viewing circumstances, the 
feathering helps to create the texture 
and character of this tulip. 

The cream-colored paint describing the 
large white rose was laid in so thinly 
over the blue sky that again the 
underlying blue affects the overall tone. 
Denser white and violet-pink paints 
applied in minute, distinct strokes 
created the highlights and mid-tones 
over the first thin layer of paint. The 
soft bluish undersides of the petals were 
created with a thin application of paint 
containing a black pigment that 
was then scumbled with white. Finally, 
brownish glazes were used for the 
deeper shadows. Light blue paint visible 

along some outlines of the petals creates 
soft curves and adjusts the shape of 
the flower. At the center of the flower 
fine dots of lead-tin yellow indicate 
stamen tips. In intense light the creamy 
white form glows with pinks and soft 
blues. The central red-striped liverwort 
has a base paint layer of mostly lead- 
white pigment. Over the white layer the 
artist painted stripes with red paint 
containing as the primary pigment 
vermilion-cinnabar, and he finished the 
flower with glazes of red lake and blue 
pigments. The center of the flower 
probably contains red lake. The stamens 
are deep blue with dots of white on 
their tips. 

The green leaves at the center of the 
bouquet have a first opaque layer that 
contains at least the pigments green 
earth, ochers, and lead-tin yellow. To 
model the forms and paint details the 

artist used translucent yellow and 
blue-green paint. He painted the foliage 
after most of the flowers were well 
along, but the edges of the flowers were 
adjusted in some places over the foliage. 

The dark-marbled shell was painted 
over the gray paint of the ledge with 
off-white or light gray paint. As he did 
with other objects in the still life, the 
artist sensitively observed the patterns 
on the surface of the shell, noting 
at least two different tones of brown 
(both umber per X-ray fluorescence 
spectrometry). With white strokes he 
added details and texture, while with 
warm glazes he modeled the form 
with shadows. 

The condition of the painting is good. 
Ultraviolet light showed some scattered 
restorations at the edges of the picture 
and in the landscape, but few resto¬ 
rations are in the still life itself. There is 
fine craquelure in certain paints. For 
example, the red-violet center of the 
liverwort, a translucent, medium-rich 
film that no doubt contains a lake 
pigment, has a fine pattern of slightly 
lifted cracks. 


Bosschaert, Bouquet of Flowers on a Ledge 

Fig. TR4.4 Construction lines revealed in the IRR 

Fig. TR4.5 This IRR detail shows fine underdrawn 
lines around the bottom of the vase and in the buds. 
Some lines suggest floral shapes that were not 
developed into paint. 

The lower right corner of the copper 
panel was bent at one time and restored; 
the diagonal bend is about 3 A inch 
into the picture from the lower right 
corner. The signature is abraded; the 
date, which falls over the bend, is 
very abraded and reinforced. There 
appears to be some original paint, but 
only with IRR can one make out the 
date as 1619 (fig. TR.4.3). 

The thick varnish, which appears semi¬ 
glossy and uniform, fluoresces strongly 
in ultraviolet light and mutes the 
restorations described above. The 
painting was sprayed with an acrylic 
varnish in 1982. 

The infrared reflectogram 1 was very 
light and lacking in contrast due to the 
high IR reflectivity of the ground that 

contains calcium carbonate. 2 This made 
it somewhat difficult to see anything in 
the image. However, when the contrast 
and darkness were modified using 
Photoshop, construction lines, under¬ 
drawing, pentimenti, and, most 
interestingly, what looked like tiny 
black dots of pouncing were revealed. 

The construction lines (fig. TR4.4) 
consist of a centralized vertical line, 
bisected by two horizontal lines that 
describe the ledge on which the vase sits. 3 
The vertical line is thicker and more 
powdery-looking than the two horizon¬ 
tal lines and may have been executed 
in black chalk or charcoal. The two 
horizontal lines are sharper, thinner, 
and more even in width, perhaps done 
with graphite pencil or metalpoint 
(a pen and liquid medium containing 
carbon-black pigment could also have 
produced such lines). A straightedge 
was certainly used to draw these lines. 

The IRR showed underdrawing in some 
of the flowers and in and around the 
bottom of the vase itself. In some cases 
these lines depict flowers that were not 
translated into paint (fig. TR4.5). The 
lines are similar in character (though 
a little thinner) to the horizontal 
construction lines. They are uniform in 
width and may have been executed 
in pen. However, their unwavering and 
deliberate character, without correc¬ 
tions, also suggests the possibility that 
the drawing was transferred. 

When the contrast of the IRR was 
increased, tiny dark dots that looked like 
pouncing were noted around the petals 
of the large white rose, just left of center 
(fig. TR4.6). Pouncing is a transfer 
technique in which tiny perforations 
are made in the lines of a drawing. The 


Bosschaert, Bouquet of Flowers on a Ledge 

Fig. TR4.6 IRR detail of the white rose. When the 
contrast in the IRR was increased, pouncing was 
revealed around the outlines of some petals. 

drawing is then placed over a prepared 
canvas or panel, and a pigment is dusted 
through the holes to transfer the 
design. The dots of pigment can be 
connected with something more 
permanent such as a pen or brushed 
line, and any excess pigment dust 
brushed away. Using the IRR, other 
sections of the painting were examined 
for evidence of pouncing, but it appeared 
to be most apparent in the rose. Also the 
lead-white paint of the rose is particu¬ 
larly transparent in IRR, and this may 
be why the pouncing is more evi¬ 
dent here. However, there is also the 
possibility that the pouncing exists only 
in the rose, suggesting that the more 
complex flower was transferred into the 

Like many still-life painters, Bosschaert 
probably used florilegia for his detailed 
and precise floral paintings. 4 No draw¬ 
ings by Bosschaert the Elder are extant; 
however, if he used drawings to transfer 
his designs, this might explain why 

none survived. Such working drawings 
could be used multiple times and would 
not have had much aesthetic value for 
early collectors due to the perforations, 
distortions, and pigment residues. 

In any case, the repetition of almost 
identical flowers in his paintings 
(sometimes reversed) suggests that he 
used prints or drawings to guide him. 

The IRR also showed a pentimento of 
a dark butterfly/moth, located at the top 
center of the composition, just above 
and to the left of the red-and-white 
striped anemone. It is likely that the 
butterfly may have been developed fur¬ 
ther than the underdrawing stage 
because it has been given a wash that 
contained carbon black—before it was 
abandoned and covered with green 


1 The IR reflectogram was taken using the i4oonm 
interference bandpass filter. 

2 X-ray fluorescence spectrometry (XRF) confirmed 
the presence of calcium throughout the painting, 
suggesting CaC03 in a ground. 

3 Vertical and horizontal placement lines have also 
been found in floral still-life paintings on copper 
by Bosschaert’s son, Bosschaert the Younger 
(1609-1645). Murray and Groen 1994, p. 13. 

4 Florilegia were reference books, filled with 
detailed drawings and images of rare and 
beautiful flowers. For descriptions of the use of 
florilegia by Dutch painters, see Washington 1999, 
p. 25, Murray and Groen 1994, pp. 7-20, and 
Pennisi 2007. 


Bosschaert, Bouquet of Flowers on a Ledge 

Jan Dirksz. Both 

(ca. 1618-1652) 




Landscape with a Draftsman, 
ca. 1645-50 

Oil on canvas, 40% x 46% in. 
(103.5x117.8 cm) 

Signed lower left: JBoth 

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter 


S ilhouetted against still water in which trees are 
reflected, an artist sketches as a man leans over his 
shoulder and gestures toward a stone bridge 
with a tower and an ancient portal. Warm light diffused 
through the landscape illuminates the distant hills. To the 
right of the artist, a shepherd in a sheepskin vest sits 
on a rock, his attention drawn to a herder leading a bull and 
speaking to a man seated on a heavily laden donkey. The 
warm light, distant mountains, stone bridge, and staffage 
remove the scene from the local experience of the 
Netherlands and, instead, evoke the Roman Campagna. 

Jan Both probably painted Landscape with a Draftsman 
in Utrecht in the mid- to late 1640s following his return 
from Italy in 1642. The painting is a transitional work, exe¬ 
cuted just before he established his mature style about 1650. 
The tight brushwork, compact shape of the central tree, 
and the dramatic contrast between the massive dark forms 
on one side of the composition and the light-filled distance 
reflect his earlier style, while the sensitive treatment of 
light and atmosphere herald his later paintings. After about 
1650, the date of the similarly composed Italian Landscape 
with Ferry (Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv. no. SK-A-52), 
Both's paintings exhibit looser brushwork and a preference 
for trees with open foliage and prominent detail in the fore¬ 
ground. 1 The progression from foreground to background 
is also more gradual than in his earlier paintings. 

In 1662 the Dutch writer Cornelis de Bie (1627-ca. 1711) 
called Both a painter of landscapes “bien ordonees.'' 2 He 
recognized that Both's compositions in which the figures 
appear to be casually placed within their natural environ¬ 
ment, as if caught in a chance view of everyday life, were, in 
fact, carefully orchestrated. Boths approach to composition, 
as his biographer the German artist and writer Joachim 
von Sandrart (1606-1688) noted, was closely related to that 
of his slightly older contemporary, the French painter 
Claude Lorrain (1604-1682), whom he had known in Rome 
and with whom he had shared the commission to paint 
landscapes for the Buen Retiro Palace in Madrid. 3 The com¬ 
positional structure of Landscape with a Draftsman —the deep 
view to the light-filled distance framed by tall trees cast 
in shadow in the foreground—is similar to early works by 
Claude that Both would have known in Rome, such as 
Landscape with the Rest on the Flight into Egypt, about 1639. 4 
Also like Claude, Both used light and staffage to define the 
specific time of day—here the late afternoon (or early evening). 

From the example of Claude as well as the Haarlem 
painters, especially Esaias van de Velde (1587-1630), Both 
developed the device of visually moving the viewer through 
the landscape by carefully positioning the staffage. Whereas 
Claude and others employed lines of figures to direct the 
viewer. Both, like Van de Velde, hyphenated the movement 

by placing his figures at critical points, letting their postures 
suggest direction. In the Carter painting, the draftsman 
and his companion, who face away from the viewer, help to 
connect the dark foreground to the softly lit bridge and 
distant mountains. Strong sunlight draws attention back to 
the foreground, where a shepherd seated on a rock directs 
the viewer's gaze to the travelers, whose positions indicate 
they have met in passing. The bright red sleeve and hunched 
posture of the man on the donkey points toward the road, 
which continues behind the trees and reappears in the 
distance, where it crosses a bridge. Both probably appropri¬ 
ated the device of the stone bridge from Claude, who 
frequently included the horizontal motif in his paintings of 
the late 1630s and 1640s. By reorienting the bridge on 
a diagonal, however. Both suggests the continuation of the 
road, linking the foreground and background. 5 

Both's figures are larger and compositionally more 
significant than Claude's. They also differ in character. 
Rather than Claude's arcadian shepherds, here contempo¬ 
rary travelers casually conduct their business. The carefully 
observed postures and expressions of the figures establish 
a sense of intimacy and psychological rapport. Both derived 
his figure type from the images of Roman peasant scenes 
painted by Pieter van Laer (1599-1642). He was also strongly 
influenced by his older brother Andries (ca. 1612-1641), 
who had provided the figures in Jan's landscapes for the 
Buen Retiro in 1640-41. Jan's figures are typically stockier 
and their facial types less wizened than those by his brother. 6 

Jan Both painted the subject of an artist sketching 
a number of times throughout his career. 7 In the Los Angeles 
painting, the position of the artist seen from the back invites 
the viewer to share the distant vista that has captured his 
attention. Although images of artists sketching also appear 
in the work of earlier artists. Both was probably inspired 
again by the example of Claude, who included a similar 
figure of an artist sketching alongside bystanders gesturing 
toward the distance in Artist Studying from Nature (fig. 5.1). 8 
Both artists were referring to actual practices and, perhaps, 
wanted to suggest the veracity of their painted views. 
Sandrart, who lived in Rome between 1629 and 1635, describes 
expeditions into the countryside with Claude Lorrain and 
Nicolas Poussin (1594-1665) "to paint or to draw landscapes 
directly from nature.'' 9 Although typically artists in the 
seventeenth century returned to their studios to paint, 
a drawing by Jan Asselijn (after 1610-1652), a Dutch painter 
who was active in Rome between 1635 and about 1642, depicts 
a painter at an easel set outdoors (Kupferstichkabinett, 
Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, inv. no. KdZ 144). 

The msountainous landscape and ancient bridge in 
Landscape with a Draftsman is generally reminiscent of 
the Roman Campagna, but it is, nevertheless, a fantasy. 16 


Both, Landscape with a Draftsman 

Both based the bridge with the cylindrical tower and portal 
on the ancient Ponte Lucano and the Tomb of the Plautii 
located on the Via Tiburtina, the road that connects Rome 
with Tivoli. The ancient Roman bridge that spans the 
Aniene River was a well-known landmark approximately 
sixteen miles from Rome. Beginning in the seventeenth 
century, it was a popular subject for vedutisti (painters dedi¬ 
cated to capturing views of the city) and landscape painters 
alike. 11 The actual appearance of the bridge, however, is 
reversed in the Carter painting. Working in Utrecht after his 
return from Rome, Both probably based his image of the 
bridge on a print, such as that by Israel Silvestre (1621-1691) 
(The British Museum, London, inv. no. 2005, U.22), which 
represents a similar prospect and condition of the portal. 3 
Ann Sutherland Harris notes, however, that the setting 
differs from the real landscape, which is much flatter than 
in Both's painting, and that the proportions of the bridge 
are also different: the actual portal is stockier and the bridge 
is arched. 3 

The general composition of Landscape with a Draftsman 
is repeated in at least three other paintings, including 
one very close variant (fig. 5.2) that James D. Burke consid¬ 
ered to have been painted by Both after he completed the Los 
Angeles canvas. 14 A smaller painting on copper by Both, Italian 
Landscape with the Ponte Molle (Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, 
inv. no. SK-A-51), also appears to represent the Ponte Lucano 
and Tomb of the Plautii approached from the direction 
of Rome, the most popular view among artists. The tall, 
feathery trees suggest that the painting dates slightly later 
than the Carter landscape. A painting considered to be by 
a follower of Both repeats the same composition but includes 
different figures in the right foreground. 3 

Both's paintings enjoyed great popularity in Italy 
and the Netherlands during and following his lifetime. 
The basic composition of the Carter painting was apparently 
well known and inspired paintings and drawings by 
his contemporaries and followers, especially Thomas Wijck 
(1616/24-1677) and Willem de Heusch (1625-1692). 16 


Both, Landscape with a Draftsman 

Fig. 5-1 

Fig. 5.2 

Fig. 5.1 Claude Lorrain (1604-1682), Artist Studying 
from Nature, 1639. Oil on canvas, 30% x 39% in. 

(78.1 x 101 cm). Cincinnati Art Museum, Ohio, gift of 
Mary Ftanna (inv. no. 1946.102) 

Fig. 5.2 Jan Dirksz. Both, Landscape with a River, ca. 
1645-50. Oil on canvas, 40% x 4 6 Yz in. (104 x 118 cm). 
Location unknown 


Both, Landscape with a Draftsman 



Fig. TR5.1 Infrared reflectogram 

Fig. TR5.2 Digital micrograph (loox magnification) 
of the inner wall of the arch on the bridge where 
gray ground beneath the pink paint is visible 

The painting is on a medium-weight, 
plain-weave fabric lined to a similar 
canvas with an aqueous adhesive. 
Although the original tacking margins 
are missing, the composition seems 
complete. The X-radiograph shows 
scalloping on all sides of the canvas and 
some lines of loss where the tacking 
edges rolled over an earlier stretcher. It 
also exposes some tack holes located 
slightly within the painting to compen¬ 
sate for weakening margins. 

Although the ground of the painting is 
highly reflective in infrared reflectogra- 
phy (IRR), once the contrast was 
adjusted using Photoshop, fine under¬ 
drawn lines of carbon black were 
noted in some of the figures in the 

landscape but not in the actual land¬ 
scape or bridge (fig. TR 5.1). It was 
not possible to tell if these lines were 
done with a fine brush or pen or 
with a dry drawing material such as 
black chalk, charcoal, or pencil. 

The painting seems to have a double 
ground: the first is pink and the second 
a very light gray (fig. TR 5.2). The artist 
painted the sky down to the landscape 
with light blue paint that contains the 
pigment smalt, leaving a reserve for 
the large tree. The general tones of the 
landscape were added with broad 
strokes of thinly applied opaque to thin 
translucent paints. The gray ground 
shows through the thin layers; this is 
particularly evident in the water and 
some of the rocks. The foliage was 
developed with thin, translucent to 
thicker, opaque layers of paint, which 

contain lead white, azurite, ocher, green 
earth, and smalt, among other pig¬ 
ments. A daubing technique, perhaps 
using lichen, was used for the initial 
lay-in of foliage (fig. TR 5.3). Finally, 
leaves were painted with small brushes 
on the surface with mostly thick, 
light-colored paint (fig. TR 5.4). The 
figures and bridge were painted directly 
over the painted landscape. Fine 
brushstrokes of thick cream-colored 
paints flicked in various directions 
describe the texture of the fleece vest of 
the seated shepherd. 

The dark paint of the signature is a little 
abraded and lightly reinforced. The 
painting is in good condition. It has 


Both, Landscape with a Draftsman 

Fig. TR5.3 Digital micrograph (25X magnification) 
showing leaves of large foreground tree executed 
with daubing technique over the sky 

Fig. TR5.4 Digital micrograph (25X magnification) 
showing leaves of large foreground tree executed 
with brushes over the sky 

a fine crackle pattern that is barely 
noticeable. The surface has slight 
abrasion, and the lining imparts some 
canvas-weave texture. There is 
a restored loss about 1 inch in diameter 
located 6 inches above the head of 
the seated man. There are some further 
restorations in the sky to the right of 
the big tree and along the edges of the 
painting. The restorations show clearly 
in ultraviolet light. 

Overall the surface of the painting has 
a soft, even appearance. The varnish 
may be a natural resin. It has yellowed 
and developed a fine craquelure, and 
it no longer saturates the dark colors. In 
ultraviolet light the varnish fluoresces 


Both, Landscape with a Draftsman 

Dirck de Bray 

(ca. 1635-1694) 

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter 





Flowers in a Glass Vase, 1671 
Oil on wood, 19 14 x 14% in. 

(48.9 x 36.5 cm) 

Signed and dated lower left: 1671 D. D. Brayf 


D irck de Bray is known to have painted only seven 
flower still lifes; of these. Flowers in a Glass Vase 
is arguably one of his masterpieces. With this casual 
bouquet of common flowers that bloom in the Netherlands 
in the late summer, De Bray celebrates both color and 
light. Strongly illuminated by light shining through a win¬ 
dow and reflected in the glass vase, the warm colors of 
the bouquet radiate against the dark, undefined background. 
The flowers twist and turn; some reach for the light while 
others droop with the weight of overripe blossoms; some 
cast shadows on each other; and others recede into the 
shadows. The play of light and dark within the blossoms 
and of light caught by the edges and veins of the leaves 
contributes to the bouquet's realism. De Bray used shadows 
thrown on the table by illumination from above and slightly 
to the left to create the impression of a flat surface receding 
into depth. A triangular area of darkness in the lower left 
corner of the panel is balanced by the perpendicular shadow 
created by the vase. To enhance the impression of space, 
he painted a large crane fly emerging from the shadow into 
the light and a small housefly disappearing behind the 
base of the vase, devices he also used in other paintings. 

A similar interest in strong lighting effects is found in his 
woodcuts as well as in his Still Life with Dead Rabbit and Falcon 
inaNiche, also in LACMA's collection (inv. no. 48.9). 

Evidence obtained from infrared reflectography and 
the X-radiograph indicates that De Bray began with a general 
sketch of the composition that he left in reserve when he 
painted the background (see Technical Report). Numerous 
pentimenti reveal how De Bray reworked the individual 
flowers, changing not only the size but possibly also the type 

of flower. The swift, assured strokes with which he adeptly 
described the curling edges of flowers and the play of 
light within the casual bouquet suggest that he may have 
painted directly from an actual bouquet, one that included 
only flowers that bloom in the Netherlands in late summer: 
poppies, China rose, morning glory, and hollyhock. The 
crane fly is also found only from August to October. 

De Bray's modest flower still life differs significantly 
from those produced half a century earlier by Ambrosius 
Bosschaert the Elder (see cat. no. 4), whose symmetrical, 
evenly lit, and tightly painted bouquets include exotic as 
well as simple local flowers that bloom at various times 
of the year. Although the application of paint and selection 
of flowers differ, De Bray's bouquet, with its loose natural¬ 
ism, anticipates by fifty years the large decorative flower 
arrangements of Jan van Huysum (see cat. no. 17), in which 
voluptuous flowers past their peak droop under the weight 
of their blossoms. Positioned halfway between Bosschaert 
and Van Huysum, De Bray used color and light to produce 
a sensuous, naturalistic bouquet that celebrates the individ¬ 
ual blossoms of ordinary flowers. 

De Bray's selection of flowers and insects and the 
painting's ruddy tonality have been interpreted by some as 
symbolic of transience. 1 The tonality, however, appears 
to relate more to the changes in the pigments and possibly 
to the artist's aesthetic interests. 2 Thus, while De Bray's 
interest in symbolism is clearly documented in Still Life with 
Marian Symbols, dated 1672 (Museum Ons' Lieve Heer op 
Solder, Amsterdam, inv. no. AK 365), without the presence 
of specific religious objects, it is speculative at best to assign 
extended meaning to Flowers in a Glass Vase. 


De Bray, Flowers in a Glass Vase 



Fig. TR6.1 Infrared reflectogram 

Fig. TR6.2 Digital micrograph (iox magnification) 
of the lower left part of the upper marigold 

Fig. TR6.3 Raking light on the surface of the painting 

Fig. TR6.4 X-radiograph 

Fig. TR6.5 Pentimenti in the blue morning glory 
flower shows that it was initially a different flower, 
and that the artist painted the imprimatura around 
it to create a reserve. When he later changed it to 
a morning glory, he painted in the darker background 
paint around its new shape. In the IRR one can 
still see the imprimatura that has a lower carbon- 
black content than the background paint. 

The panel is a single board about 5 A 6 
inch thick. The edges of the reverse have 
gentle bevels that are uneven in width. 
The panel is in excellent condition. The 
light-cream-colored ground is thin and 
translucent, and, consequently, the 
warm color of the wood permeates the 
ground and thinner paints. An 
imprimatura may cover the ground, 
and extensive underdrawing was 
detected with infrared reflectography 
(IRR). 1 Several pentimenti were also 
found indicating that, despite the 
underdrawing, De Bray continued to 
work out the composition, making 
changes at different stages (fig. TR 6.1). 

De Bray painted the dark gray back¬ 
ground, leaving a reserve for the still 
life. For the most part, the background 
paint is a mixture of carbon black with 
various earth pigments and vermilion 
that was loosely applied in several 
layers. The paint on the right side of the 
painting, which is in shadow, however, 
is denser. He used the dark background 
paint to shape the already painted 
flowers and obtain the appropriate 
outlines. The thin, dark lines that De 

Bray used to set in the design for the 
floral bouquet were difficult to differen¬ 
tiate from the black background paint 
because both contain carbon black and 
appear dark in IRR. The lines may have 
been done with a brush or pen; there is 
also the possibility they were trans¬ 
ferred from a drawing. They do not have 
the broken, powdery appearance 
of a charcoal or black-chalk drawing 

De Bray used a variety of pigments and 
techniques to achieve the natural 
appearance of the flowers. For example, 
he laid in the poppies with paint 
containing the pigment vermilion- 
cinnabar. Their frilly tops were painted 
with quick, short, and regular strokes of 
local color. The light-colored paint on 
the underside of the poppies is on top of 
the first red layer. Crimson glazes 
provide the deepest reds, while blue 
(copper-based) pigments and dashes of 
opaque light violet create the cool 
shadows and nuances. 

The large white tree mallows (contain¬ 
ing predominantly lead white) were 
painted with long brushstrokes 
that follow the forms of the petals. The 

center of the flower was glazed with 
deep red lake, and blue paint was 
very thinly applied for the shadows on 
the petals. 

The red marigolds were painted in an 
interesting way. Translucent crimson 
paint containing vermilion-cinnabar 
and red lake pigments was applied for 
the petals. To create their outer edges, 
the artist scraped the still-wet red paint 
with a blunt pointed tool. He then 
applied the yellow centers, brushing the 
yellow-orange paint, which contains the 
pigment realgar, into the still-wet paint 
of the red petals to create the scallops 
(fig. TR 6.2). 

The blue morning glory in the center of 
the bouquet was laid in with a rich blue 
paint. Its petals were painted over parts 
of the green leaves and the white tree 
mallow. The morning glory bud at the 
upper right was painted with numerous 
colors: the calyxes are bluish-green with 
an indigo-blue-colored tip; the bud is 
painted with white paint that is glazed 
with a lake pigment (pink?), and the 
crown has violet lake, vermilion colors, 


De Bray, Flowers in a Glass Vase 

and white impasto. The shadow side has 
a gray glaze or scumble. The raking- 
light photograph shows a visually 
stimulating use of impasto that gives 
tangible form to the image (fig. TR 6.3). 

The first application for the leaves is 
a light-colored paint containing primar¬ 
ily azurite and lead white that may be 
glazed with copper resinate. The leaves 
were once a richer green in color and 
probably more evident in the composi¬ 
tion, but over time copper resinate 
characteristically discolors to brown. 

A number of pentimenti were found in 
the examination of the painting with 
X-radiography (fig. TR 6.4) and the IRR. 
The rear edge of the table was lowered 
from its initial position. Also, the stem 
of the left flower resting on the table 
once shot up in front of the vase (or was 
a reflection) and is now just visible in 
normal viewing conditions. There 
are numerous changes in the upper 
right area of the painting. 

Comparison of the infrared reflecto- 
gram with the X-radiograph revealed 
that the light pink flower on the 
right side of the painting, for example. 

was changed in size several times. First 
it was underdrawn, and then the artist 
brought the imprimatura in a little 
over the lines. The flower was then 
painted larger with some paint contain¬ 
ing lead white, only to be reduced in 
size later, when he brushed in the dark 
background paint. The IRR shows the 
underdrawn outlines of the earlier large 
flower, the imprimatura, and the 
background paint—all of which contain 
carbon black. The X-radiograph was 
able to show the expanded flower 
because De Bray had used a paint con¬ 
taining lead white, which, while 
transparent in IRR, is very visible in 
an X-radiograph. 

IRR also indicates that the morning 
glory blossom was planned to be 
a different flower with individually 
shaped petals (fig. TR 6.5). The 
X-radiograph revealed a morning glory 
bud positioned above the morning 
glory blossom at the upper right that 
does not appear in the final picture. 
There are many other adjustments 
to flowers that are visible with the aid 
of analytical tools; for example, the 

X-radiograph revealed a larger and 
somewhat differently configured 
blossom beneath the pink flower on 
the right. 

The condition of the painting is very 
good. It has not been cleaned since it 
entered the Carter collection. The 
varnish appears a little discolored, and 
it no longer saturates the colors. 
Ultraviolet light showed very little 
restoration. The thin varnish fluoresces 
greenish-yellow. Denser fluorescence 
along the right background may 
indicate later toning. The painting may 
have been varnished in its frame: on 
the right and bottom sides, thicker 
fluorescent strips of varnish follow the 
edges of the frame; narrow strips along 
the bottom and left edges do not 
fluoresce in ultraviolet light, suggesting 
the absence of varnish. 


1 Tests showed that the underdrawing was most 
visible using the i6oonm interference bandpass 
filter in the Indigo Systems Phoenix NIR digital 


De Bray, Flowers in a Glass Vase 

Jan van de Cappelle 





Ships in a Calm, early 1650s Gift of Mr -and Mrs - Edward W. Carter 

Oil on canvas, 31 x 43 in. (78.7 x 109.2 cm) M.2003.108.6 


S ilhouetted against the sky, an elegant states yacht 
flying the Dutch flag, its leeboard and hull painted 
with landscapes, lies at anchor beside two coastal 
traders (beurtschippen ). 1 Cannons fired from the yacht 
announce the arrival of dignitaries who are being trans¬ 
ported to shore on a barge ( roeisloep ). 2 Rowed by four 
oarsmen with two pikemen standing sentinel in the bow, 
the barge skims across the still water, attracting the 
attention of fishermen who pause to pay their respects. In 
the distance on the right is the Oude Schans, the distinctive 
fortress at Texel, beyond which appear the masts of ships 
gathering for the Dutch fleet. 1 

In his paintings of the calm sea, as in his depictions 
of winter scenes of ice skating, Jan van de Cappelle's 
primary interest was in capturing complex light effects. The 
sky occupies three-quarters of the composition of Ships 
in a Calm. Reflections of the sails and sky in the mirror-smooth 
water help to integrate the composition and contribute 
to the pervading impression of calm. In the distance, backlit 
clouds defined in delicate tones of light brown and gray 
dissolve into silvery white at the horizon. The luminous 
tonality suggests the moist atmosphere that appears as 
the sun sets. 

Ships in a Calm is one of Van de Cappelle's most classical 
compositions in which his restricted palette and carefully 
orchestrated light combine with a strong structure based on 
a limited number of elements. The major focus of the 
painting is in the middle distance, where there is a balanced 
interplay of horizontals and verticals. Cool light draws 
attention to the horizon, which visually cuts across the 
decks of the yacht, the coastal traders, and the barge posi¬ 
tioned parallel to the picture plane. The low gray clouds 
hovering over the sea on the distant left reinforce the 
line of the gaff that has been released to lower the spritsail 
on the yacht while it is in port. 4 The tall masts and sails 
rising above the horizon and reflected in the still water in 
the foreground provide the vertical accents that balance 
the composition.^ 

Reported to have been self-taught. Van de Cappelle 
was keenly aware of the work of his predecessors and 
contemporaries, whose paintings and drawings he collected 
and occasionally copied. 6 The influence of Simon de Vlieger 
(1600/1601-1653) was particularly significant during 
the late 1640s, when Van de Cappelle modeled many of his 
compositions on those of the older artist. 7 His painting 

A Harbor with Reflecting Water, dated 1649 (Nationalmuseum, 
Stockholm, inv. no. NM 562), for example, relies heavily on 
De Vlieger's Sailboats at the Shore (ca. early 17th century) 
(Muzeum PaJacu Krola Jana III w Wilanowie, Warsaw, inv. 
no. Wil. 1666). Van de Cappelle was apparently inspired 
by De Vlieger's simple massing of ships on a calm, reflecting 
sea and his skill at evoking a silvery atmospheric effect in 
his paintings (see cat. no. 34). 

The Carter picture, probably painted in the early 
1650s, a few years after the Stockholm composition, 
represents further development of lessons Van de Cappelle 
learned from De Vlieger's example. Moving the boats back 
into the middle distance so that they almost ride the 
horizon, reducing the number of figures, and then relocat¬ 
ing them below the horizon line. Van de Cappelle focused 
the composition on the three central ships and emphasized 
the vastness of the sky and sea. Whereas in Sailboats at 
the Shore, De Vlieger suggested recession by the diagonal 
alignment of the sails and the placement of the Indiaman in 
the distant right. Van de Cappelle emphatically stressed 
the horizontal and vertical orientation of the composition. 
By reversing the angle of the sails, dropping the sail on 
the yacht, and using the vertical line of the masts, he created 
a serenely still image in which the clouds hover quietly over 
the distant horizon. Billowing softly on the right, they 
balance the weight of the ships rather than emphasize the 
diagonal as they do in De Vlieger's painting as well as in 
Van de Cappelle's painting of 1649 in Stockholm. 

Ships in a Calm is one of many compositions Van de 
Cappelle painted of naval parades and scenes of yachts 
and barges delivering dignitaries to shore (for another 
example, see The J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles, inv. 
no. 96.PB.7). In the Carter painting, a portly, gray-haired 
man with a hat sits in the back of the barge on a cloth 
of honor. The unusual orientation of the yacht, which is 
viewed from the side, emphasizes the gold rampant lion 
that serves as the masthead. Typically, as in A Yacht and Other 
Vessels in a Calm by Willem van de Velde the Younger (see 
cat. no. 33), artists present the stern, by which ships are 
usually identified. Here, however, despite the seeming speci¬ 
ficity of the ship, which has not been identified. Van de 
Cappelle was apparently not interested in representing 
a specific event. Instead of historical scenes, he chose 
to present subjects based on what he often observed 
from his own yacht to serve as vehicles for his carefully 
constructed compositions. 8 


Van de Cappelle, Ships in a Calm 



Fig. TR7.1 X-radiograph 
Fig. TR7.2 Infrared reflectogram 

The original support is a medium- 
weight, plain-weave canvas lined with 
an aqueous adhesive to a fine, plain- 
weave canvas. The current stretcher 
is slightly larger than the painted 
image, which is approximately 30 Vz 
by 4214 inches (77.5 by 107.3 cm). 

The original tacking margins were 
folded out, filled, and painted. Lines of 
paint loss where the tacking edges 
originally folded over the front edge of 
a previous stretcher are visible in the 
X-radiograph (fig. TR 7.1). 

The painting appears to have a rela¬ 
tively dark gray ground, possibly 
applied over a thin reddish one. Paints 
range from opaque and pasty to thin 
glazes. The blue paint of the sky, which 
contains smalt, was applied over the 
ground, and the clouds were built up 
fairly directly with energetic 

brushwork. Most of the colors contain 
ocher, lead white, and calcium white, 
which produce the muted tones. The 
gray ground contributes to this effect. 

Infrared reflectography (IRR) did not 
reveal any underdrawing (fig. TR 7.2), 
although it may be difficult to see 
because of the painting’s double 
ground—a lower red and an upper dark 
gray ground containing carbon black. 

If underdrawing was done with carbon 
black, it would be difficult to detect 
because there would be little contrast 
between it and the gray ground. 

The ships were added after the central 
clouds were mostly painted. The 
X-radiograph and IRR reveal a few 
pentimenti. The boat on the far right 
side originally had a differently shaped 
sail or sails, their former placement 
painted out with thick white paint; the 

mast may also have been shifted. This 
change is, however, more apparent in 
the X-radiograph detail (figs. TR7.3, 
TR7.4). The sail of the largest ship with 
the dark yellow sail has also been 
shifted from its original position, which 
was slightly more to the left and a little 
more upright. The original sail was 
painted with a paint containing carbon 
black before the artist covered part of it 
with the white paint used in the sky. 
This change is now partially visible in 
normal light due to the increased 
transparency of the paint as a result 
of aging. 

The condition of the painting is good. 
There is a large crackle pattern. The 
lining has flattened the cracks but also 
the paint of the picture to some degree. 


Van de Cappelle, Ships in a Calm 

Fig. TR7.3 IRR detail of sail 

Fig. TR7.4 X-radiograph detail of sail 

Ultraviolet light shows a circle of 
restoration (about 3 inches in diameter) 
above the sailboat in the middle dis¬ 
tance on the right, but the X-radiograph 
shows it covers only a small vertical loss 
that has been filled. Ultraviolet light 
also reveals two repairs, one above the 
other, in the tallest sail. There is also 
some general restoration in the gray 
cloud about 7 inches to the right of the 
tallest sail. The darks of the lower third 
of the water have been lightly toned, 
probably to hide abrasions. Numerous 
cracks in the sky have also been toned. 

Since entering the Carter collection in 
1971, the painting has not been cleaned. 
The varnish, likely a natural resin, is 
somewhat yellowed. In past cleanings 
more varnish was removed from 
the lower right of the painting than 


Van de Cappelle, Ships in a Calm 

Pieter Claesz. 





still Life with Herring, Wine, and Bread, Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter 


Oil on wood, 17% x 23 Ms in. 

(44.8x58.7 cm) 

Signed and dated at right: VC 11647 


D ated 1647, Still Life with Herring ,, Wine, and Bread is one 
of the late, monochrome still-life paintings of 
simple meals for which Pieter Claesz. earned his 
reputation. The developments in still life introduced and 
popularized during the early 1630s in Haarlem by Claesz. 
and Willem Claesz. Heda (see cat. no. 13) parallel those in 
landscape and marine painting in which the reduction and 
organization of motifs are combined with a limited palette 
of thinly applied paint. In contrast to the high vantage 
point and local colors of the earlier depictions of laid tables 
by Floris Claesz. van Dijck (1575-1651), Osias Beert the Elder 
(ca. 1580-1623), and others, in which objects appear isolated 
on a table viewed from above, here the low viewpoint causes 
the objects to overlap, suggesting that they exist in spatial 
relationship to each other on a flat surface. 1 Painted with 
a palette restricted to tones of ocher, brown, gray, and white 
and contained within a visual wedge suggested by the 
diagonal extending from the tall rummer to the bread roll, 
the still life forms a cohesive, naturalistic composition. 

Still Life with Herring, Wine, and Bread is one of a group of 
closely related horizontal still lifes Claesz. painted between 
1646 and 1647, including Still Life with Roemer, Fish, and Reeled 
Lemon, dated 1646 (Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts, 
Moscow, inv. no. 580), 2 and Still Life with a Fish (Rijksmuseum, 
Amsterdam, inv. no. SK-A-1857), 3 dated 1647, the same year 
as the Carter painting. 4 All three paintings share both 
compositional characteristics and specific objects, although 
they are arranged in different combinations. 

Claesz. did not simply copy the objects in his paint¬ 
ings from other compositions or drawings; he painted 
directly from actual objects he had arranged and studied in 
his studio. This innovative procedure, which Heda also 
followed, explains the repetition of certain objects seen 
from different perspectives and the carefully observed and 
rendered reflections of one object on another: the yellow of 
the lemon on the pewter plate, the vine leaf on the saltcellar, 
the fish on the plate, and the reflection of the window on 
the rummer. 

Typically referred to as an ontbijt (breakfast), the paint¬ 
ing represents a simple meal consumed in the morning: 
a cooked herring with capers on a sharply foreshortened 
pewter plate, a tall rummer of white wine, a crusty roll, 
walnuts and hazelnuts, and a partially peeled lemon. 

A knife in its sheath lies diagonally on the edge of the table, 
while a pewter saltcellar entwined with vines stands in 
the background. Claesz. carefully selected and placed each 
object to create a cohesive, dynamic, three-dimensional 
image. The knife and plate that extend forward over the 
table are familiar devices. The lemon, skillfully peeled 
to produce a single spiral, was a conceit demonstrating not 

only the skill of the diner but also that of the painter, who, 
in addition to representing the complicated form, had to 
differentiate between the moist flesh of the lemon, its cool, 
nubbly exterior, and the soft white layer in between. 

Although in essence constituting a simple meal, the 
foods Claesz. included in the painting speak of the world¬ 
wide trade network of the Dutch during the seventeenth 
century. Herring, which was fished in the North Sea, 
was central to the Dutch economy. By the 1660s Pieter de la 
Court estimated that more than one thousand busses or 
fishing smacks with capacities of forty-eight to sixty tons 
apiece were employed by the North Sea fisheries. “The 
fishing industry with its ancillary trades then employed 
about 450,000 persons, compared with about 200,000 
engaged in agriculture and about 650,000 engaged in other 
industries.” 5 In addition to its importance as a vital part 
of the Dutch economy, herring was a staple of the Dutch diet 
for both the rich and the poor. 

Salt, here elevated on the pewter saltcellar, was essen¬ 
tial for the Dutch diet. 6 According to Jacob Cats (1577-1660), 
“One can do better on earth without gold, than without 
salt.”7 Salt was required for making cheese and butter as 
well as for packing herring and preserving other meats and 
foods, especially for transport aboard ships for long 
journeys to distant ports. The Dutch originally harvested 
salt from domestic peat, but after 1500 they imported raw 
sea and rock salt, first from France and Germany, and later 
from Spain, Portugal, and the Cape Verde Islands, also 
known as the Salt Islands. 8 By the early seventeenth century, 
the West Indies had become the primary source of salt 
for the Dutch, who refined it in the Netherlands for both 
domestic use and export to the Baltic states. 9 

Other foods represented in Claesz/s painting allude to 
the Mediterranean, where the Dutch conducted trade with 
the Ottoman Empire: lemons, currants, walnuts (sometimes 
referred to as Persian walnuts), and hazelnuts were com¬ 
monly found in the ports of the Mediterranean Sea. Brought 
by ship to the Netherlands, these delicacies would have been 
available only to the wealthier diners. The capers spread 
over the cooked herring also came from a warm climate, 
having been soaked like lemons in salt brine to keep them 
fresh during transport. 1 ® 

Painted in the monochrome palette of his earlier 
breakfasts, these exotic references in seemingly modest still 
lifes nevertheless relate Still Life with Herring, Wine, and 
Bread to the larger, more elaborate banquet still lifes Claesz. 
and Heda painted in their late careers. Cluttered with 
expensive food and drink—ham, crab, oranges, and meat 
pies—served on imported porcelain and expensive silver 
plates, they celebrate abundance and prosperity. 


Claesz., Still Life with Herring, Wine, and Bread 



Fig. TR8.1 Infrared reflectogram 

Fig. TR8.2 Detail of peeled lemon, grapes, 
and dishes 

Fig. TR8.3 IRR detail of peeled lemon, grapes, 
and dishes 

Fig. TR8.4 IRR detail indicating possible 

The panel, about 14 inch thick and 
beveled, is composed of two boards 
tightly joined. The top board is 
approximately 8 3 A inches wide and the 
bottom 8 7 /s inches wide. The panel is 
slightly bowed. A fine split extends 
from the bread roll through the base of 
the wineglass. 

The thin gray ground allows the wood 
color and grain to be visible. Paints 
range from pasty whites to translucent 
browns. Brushstrokes are visible in 
areas of loosely applied paint, but other 
areas are blended to a higher finish. 
Overall the paint appears medium-rich; 
this is accentuated by the glossy varnish. 

The composition was laid in with rich, 
translucent brown paint, visible in the 
shadowed background on the right, on 
the front of the table at left, and in the 

dark shadow cast by the plate with a 
lemon. Claesz. painted the light cloth 
around the shadow of the plate and 
then added thin layers of gray paint to 
make the transition from light to darker 
shadow. In the background, he applied 
dense bright paint on the left side that 
he brushed out to a thin scumble over 
the dark underlayer on the right to 
achieve a smooth transition from light 
to dark. The gray paint contains carbon 
black, azurite, and possibly lake. 

The fish is painted with a medium-tone 
salmon color; dark glazes and high¬ 
lights give it form. The capers seem 
quickly painted, but in several layers: 
using a small brush, the artist laid in 
dark brown paint followed by green and 
then a few dots of white as highlights. 
The green capers and leaves contain 
lead white, lead-tin yellow, azurite, 
copper resinate, ochers, and carbon 
black. The flesh of the lemon is painted 
on a very thin gray paint layer and then 

colored with yellow paint that contains 
lead white and lead-tin yellow. 

Smalt was found in the knife handle 
and the ribbon. 

X-radiography and infrared reflectogra- 
phy (IRR) (fig. TR 8.1) show only minor 
changes. IRR suggests that there may be 
underdrawing around some of the 
still-life elements. While many of these 
outlines are visible in normal light, as in 
the adjustments made to the sides of 
the white tablecloth, in a few areas lines 
appear to be covered with paint, which 
suggests that they are underdrawn. The 
lines, which appear dark against the 
IR-reflective calcium-carbonate ground, 


Claesz., Still Life with Herring, Wine, and Bread 

are fairly thin and could have been done 
with a fine brush, pen, or perhaps with 
a graphite pencil, or a metalpoint. 

There may also be some changes in the 
leaves on either side of the rummer, 
and the bowl of the rummer may have 
been adjusted (figs. TR8.2-TR8.4). 

The painting is in good condition. 

There are numerous areas of toning of 
the wood grain, which no doubt became 
more visible with time. The dark paint 
of the monogram and date has suffered 
some abrasion, and the last two digits 
are compromised by toning. The thick 
varnish fluoresces yellow-green in 
ultraviolet light. 


Claesz., Still Life with Herring, Wine, and Bread 

Adriaen Coorte 

(act. 1683-1707) 




Still Life with Strawberries 
in a Wan-LiBowl, 1704 
Oil on paper mounted on wood, 
ii 5 /s x 8 7 /s in. (29.5 x 22.5 cm) 

Signed and dated lower left, on edge of stone table: 
A Coorte/1/04 

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter 


E xhibited at an exhibition of still lifes in Amsterdam 
in 1933, Still Life with Strawberries in a Wan-Li Bowl was 
the first painting by Adriaen Coorte to come to the 
attention of twentieth-century connoisseurs and scholars. It 
remains one of the most exquisite examples of the artist’s 
work, surprisingly modern in its simplicity and its abstrac¬ 
tion of both light and form. 

Typical of Coorte’s mature compositions from 1696 
to 1707, the Carter painting, dated 1704, represents a simple 
still life placed on the corner of a stone table. The regular 
placement of the table in each of his compositions has led to 
speculation that Coorte used a template to position its 
location. 1 Like the majority of his paintings. Still Life with 
Strawberries in a Wan-Li Bowl is painted on prepared paper 
glued to a wood panel of the same size. 8 In at least two 
instances, but not in the present work, Coorte reused paper 
that had writing on it. In the Carter painting, evidence of 
damage to the paper unrelated to the condition of the panel 
suggests that the paper was attached to the panel only after 
Coorte’s death, probably to facilitate its sale. 3 

The Carter painting is one of twelve known still lifes 
in which Coorte depicted a bowl of strawberries isolated in 
bright light on the corner of a stone table. In these, as 
well as in two paintings of strawberries loosely placed on 
the table (Mauritshuis, The Hague, inv. no. 1106), from 1705, 
a single white strawberry flower rises like a flag from the 
fruit, animating the dark background. The device recalls 
Coorte’s use of a butterfly or moth in his early works, such 
as Still Life with Three Medlars and a Butterfly, about 1693-95 
(private collection, the Netherlands), 4 and the leaves in his 
contemporary paintings of gooseberries and other fruit. 5 

In the earliest of Coorte’s still lifes of strawberries, 
which date from 1696, the strawberries are in a red crockery 
bowl with a handle, typical of those used to carry fresh 
berries to or from the market. By 1704, the date of the Carter 
painting, however, Coorte had replaced the common 
crockery vessel with a delicate Chinese porcelain bowl. 6 In 
1981 the Carter still life was thought to be the only painting 
in which Coorte portrayed strawberries in a Wan-Li bowl.^ 
Since then, however, two other closely related paintings, 
also dated 1704, have been identified. 8 The repetition of the 
same bowl filled with strawberries but viewed from slightly 
different angles in other paintings suggests that Coorte 
worked directly from an object in his possession rather than 
from sketches or his imagination. Known generically as 
kraak porcelain because of the ships, carracks, that brought 
them from China, the bowl is a typical “crowcup,” mass- 
produced between about 1595 and 1645 for the European 
market and exported to the Netherlands by the Dutch East 
India Company (Verenigde Oostindische Compagnie, VOC). 
The small bowl, which has a foliated, everted rim, would 
have measured only four to five inches in diameter and two 
and a half to three and a half inches in height. The exterior 
is decorated with the popular deer motif. Usually drawn in 

a light shade of blue, the design is typically divided into 
eight panels framed by single lines. Within each panel is a 
single spotted deer, thought to be a sika, a Chinese sign of 
good luck; the panels alternate between a deer with its head 
turned backward and one facing forward, each surrounded 
by foliage. 9 

Coorte’s use of light in his later paintings both sim¬ 
plifies and abstracts forms. The blue-and-white bowls, 
silhouetted against a stark black background, rather than 
the mottled brown background that appears behind the 
crockery bowls in his earlier works, 10 dramatically set off the 
brilliant red fruit. In the Carter painting, strong highlights 
accent the rim of the bowl and the edge of the table. Dots 
of white lead and lead-tin yellow suggest the yellow seeds of 
the strawberries, which seem to sparkle in the light. In 1692 
the Amsterdam artist and author Wilhelmus Beurs (1656- 
1700) wrote about ‘“perfectly ripe strawberries’ in which the 
painter must ‘depict the shine on each individual seed.’”^ 1 
Interestingly, Beurs wrote about many of Coorte’s favorite 
subjects, including asparagus and gooseberries, as well as 
strawberries. Much of his advice on painting can also be 
found in other sources, including an English manuscript 
partly based on the instructions Jan Davidsz. de Heem 
(1606-1684) wrote before 1657, which include advice on how 
to paint grapes.* 

Although such texts may have influenced Coorte, his 
choice of motifs and interest in light and the translucency of 
grapes and gooseberries reflect the enduring legacy of 
Flemish still-life paintings. Stalks of white asparagus tied 
with twine (a delicacy grown in Zeeland), fresh berries in 
blue-and-white bowls, cracked and whole nuts, translucent 
gooseberries, and leaves that dance like kites against a dark 
background, with light captured by their edges and veins, 
are familiar elements in the still lifes of Frans Snyders 
(1579-1657) and his followers. Coorte’s interest in Flemish 
painting is clearly evident in his early work in which fruit 
rests on the corner of a bare stone tabletop over which leaves 
and fruit sometimes fall. Similarities between Coorte’s 
paintings and those of Isaac van Duynen (1628-ca. 1680), 
active in The Hague, 13 Abraham van Calraet (1642-1722), 
active in Dordrecht, 14 and the Parisian painter Louise Moillon 
(1610-1696; Norton Simon Museum, Pasadena, inv. no. 
F.1972.36.2.P) reflect common influences. 

Although there is scant information regarding his 
life, Coorte appears to have had strong ties with Vlissingen, 
the major harbor for the Dutch East India Company in 
Zeeland, strategically located at the mouth of the Scheldt 
River, the passageway from the sea to Antwerp. A document 
dated 1780 refers to Coorte as being “from Vlissingen,” 
where in 1695 and 1696 he was fined by the painters’ guild 
for selling his work without being a member of the guilds 
Laurens J. Bol also noted that the majority of the early 
references to Coorte’s paintings appear in Middelburg, the 
capital of Zeeland, and surrounding areas. 16 


Coorte, Still Life with Strawberries in a Wan-Li Bowl 



Fig. TR 9.1 Infrared reflectogram 

Fig. TR9.2 Detail of strawberries showing points of 
white with red paint around them, as well as deeper 
red paints 

The painting is on paper adhered to 
a wood panel with shallow bevels. The 
panel has a slight vertical convex bow 
through the center. Irregular, vertical 
striations on the reverse of the panel 
relate to its manufacture; some are 
faintly visible on the obverse. The paper 
support is difficult to examine because 
it is covered with paint and varnish. The 
paper does not quite go to the edges of 
the panel, especially at the top right and 
lower left. A fairly thick pink ground 
covers only the paper; it does not extend 
over the wood. There appears to be a 
thin, dark imprimatura, which is visible 
with high magnification. Infrared 
reflectography (IRR) picked up the laid 
lines of the paper, but it did not detect 
any underdrawing (fig. TR9.1). 1 IRR did 
show pentimenti painted with an 
IR-reflective pigment that appeared 
bright white through the brushstrokes 
of the carbon-black paint used in the 
background. 2 

Coorte laid in the bowl and table and 
then applied the dark background, 
which contains ochers and a small 
amount of vermilion-cinnabar, among 
other pigments. The bowl was initially 
laid in with light blue paint that 
contains smalt and iron pigments 
(ocher and/or green earth). Then 
a light-colored paint was applied and 
finally the light green-blue design. 

The design has a hazy appearance that 
may be due in part to deterioration of 
smalt in the oil medium. 

The strawberries are also painted in 
several layers. Coorte first applied dots 
of white paint, creating the raised 
points of the strawberries. Next he 
applied red paint containing vermilion- 
cinnabar pigment that flowed off the 
raised dots to expose the white tips. 
Frank Preusser, formerly Senior 
Scientist at LACMA, suggested that the 
red paint is a tempera medium and that 
the white layer is oil. Tiny bubbles are 
visible in the red paint, a characteristic 
of a water-based medium, which would 
have been repelled by the white oil 
paint. Finally, paint containing red lake 

was applied for the deeper red color 
(fig. TR9.2). X-ray fluorescence spec¬ 
trometry (XRF) of the green leaves of 
the strawberries detected copper 
pigment and/or copper resinate and a 
small amount of lead-tin yellow in 
addition to other pigments. 

A few adjustments and changes are 
visible in the X-radiograph and IRR. In 
IRR, a light halo to the left of the 
Wan-Li bowl suggests one, possibly two, 
earlier placements of the bowl. These 
pentimenti are marked on the image in 
red and blue (fig. TR9.3). The red profile 
differs significantly from that of the 
current Wan-Li bowl but appears simi¬ 
lar to Coorte’s red clay market bowls. 3 
The second darker shape, outlined in 
blue, resembles the final Wan-Li bowl 
and may represent an earlier placement 
of the bowl. Some slightly more 


Coorte, Still Life with Strawberries in a Wan-Li Bowl 

Fig. TR9.3 The red outline indicates an earlier 
shape of bowl, similar to terracotta bowls used by 
the artist in other paintings. The blue outline 
indicates another early bowl shape, and the yellow 
indicates an arc shape visible in IRR. 

Fig. TR9.4 X-radiograph marked with strawberries 
that were painted out 

IR-reflective stippling or patterning 
directly behind and above the strawber¬ 
ries on the left may be either earlier 
strawberries or patterning of the earlier 
bowl itself. There appears to be an arch 
shape beneath the table ledge to the 
right. Several strawberries were at least 
begun on the ledge at left but then 
painted out (fig. TR 9.4). 

The condition of the painting is very 
good. The paper is wrinkled in several 
areas, where it has detached from the 
wood support. Paint layers have a fine 
crackle pattern, which is slightly 
contracted in the light colors. Ultra¬ 
violet light showed limited restorations 
along the edges, especially at the 
bottom right, as well as some on the 
table to the left of the bowl. The sig¬ 
nature and date in a dark color appear 
in a good state and have age cracks. 
Ultraviolet light shows a thin, streaky, 
fluorescing varnish in good condition. 
The painting was cleaned in 1974 


1 The painting is executed on paper that is glued 
to a wooden support. The carbon-black pigment 
used in the background paint is so dark and 
absorbing in IRR that any underdrawing, if it 
exists, would be obscured. In addition, the 
vermilion pigment used for the strawberries is 
highly reflective in IRR, and that also would 
prevent the detection of any underdrawing. 

2 These pentimenti were visible in the IR reflec- 
togram taken with the i6oonm and i4oonm 
interference bandpass filters. 

3 For example, A Bowl of Strawberries on a Stone Plinth 
(Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv. no. SK-C-1687). 


Coorte, Still Life with Strawberries in a Wan-Li Bowl 

Aelbert Cuyp 





The Flight into Egypt, mid- to late 1650s 1 Gift °f Mr -and Mrs - Edward William Carter 

Oil on wood, 2 6% x 35V2 in. AC1996.150.1 

(67.6 x 90.2 cm) 

Signed lower left: A. Cuyp 


I n 1854 Gustav Waagen called Aelbert Cuyp's The Flight 
into Egypt “one of the most beautiful [paintings] that 
ever came from the master ” z Painted in the mid- to late 
1650s, the subtle light and delicately described forms mark 
a dramatic change from the artist's earlier monochromatic 
landscapes, such as View of the Maas near Dordrecht, about 1647 
(fig. 10.1). In The Flight into Egypt, the cool morning sun 
crisply defines details in the shadowed foreground while 
blurring those along the deep river landscape, where a soft, 
clear, colorful light suggestive of a pervasive moisture-laden 
atmosphere dissolves the boundaries between land, water, 
and sky. The extremely low horizon opens over three- 
quarters of the panel to the sky; fair-weather clouds rise 
over the distant mountains, guiding the viewer's eye along 
the banks of the river toward the foreground. 

The shift in style between Cuyp's early paintings and 
those of his maturity, such as The Flight into Egypt, reflects 
his interest in the Italianate landscapes of artists who had 
traveled south, particularly Jan Both (see cat. no. 5). 

Both's impressive, often large, paintings from the 1640s 
introduced Cuyp and other Dutch artists to the contre-jour 
light effects of the French painter Claude Lorrain (1604- 
1682), whom Both had known in Rome before returning to 
Utrecht by 1642. 

Cuyp's definition of the effect of light on the water 
and on the distant landscape in The Flight into Egypt is closely 
related to Both's lighting in Italian Landscape with Ferry 
(fig. 10.2), in which the unseen sun casts long shadows from 
the right, clearly defining distant forms and reflections 
on the water. In Cuyp's painting, the low sun shines from 
the opposite direction beyond the left edge of the com¬ 
position. In addition to creating the long shadows in the 
foreground, the sun crisply defines details of the clouds, 
mountains, and foliage that sparkle with the light. Like 
Both, Cuyp was interested in depicting the light effects at 
different times of day. Although the time of day—morning 
or evening—is uncertain in the Carter painting, the 
relatively cool palette and delicate haze across the distance 
suggest a morning mist that will disappear with the rising 
sun that already has turned the edges of the clouds a light 
pink. The subtle tones of the clouds and landscape reflected 
in the soft blue water distinguish the Carter painting from 
the rosier sky in the Metropolitan Museum of Art's related 
painting. Landscape with the Flight into Egypt (inv. no. 1973.155.2). 
It is unclear if this represents a development in Cuyp's style 
or if it was intended to define a different time of day. 

In The Flight into Egypt, Cuyp adopted not only the 
atmospheric light but also the compositional devices that 
characterize Both's paintings, particularly Italian Landscape 
with Ferry. In both compositions, a road framed by mountains 
pivots around two tall, slender trees, focusing attention 
son the figures in the foreground. A man and woman placed 
strategically on a rise of land to the right of the trees in the 

middle distance skillfully link the foreground to the distant 
town, where the mountains slope to meet the river. Yet, 
while adopting the general concept and possibly the motif 
of the travelers from Both, Cuyp created a stronger, more 
classically structured composition by elongating the 
horizontal dimensions, eliminating the landscape elements 
on the left, and extending the gradually descending line of 
mountains so that the broad river winds unimpeded into 
the far distance. A black chalk drawing, perhaps inspired by 
the landscape along the Rhine River (Hamburger Kunsthalle, 
Hamburg, inv. no. 21824), documents Cuyp's independent 
working out of the composition of the Carter painting. 
Although the basic structure is the same, in the painting, 
Cuyp extended the central group of trees vertically almost 
to the top of the panel, transforming it into a major struc¬ 
tural element that draws attention to the two cowherds 
who watch an elderly man leading a donkey on which rides 
a woman cradling a baby. 

The subject of the painting was not recognized until 
1925, when Knoedler Gallery exhibited it as Evening Effect— 
The Flight into Egypt . 3 The gestures of the two herdsmen 
resting on the side of the road—one man directs the gaze of 
his companion to the passing family as his horse turns to 
stare—underscore the significance of the travelers. A saw 
extending from the basket on the side of the donkey and the 
headdress and bare feet of the woman identify the travelers 
as the Holy Family fleeing Israel following King Herod's 
command that all male children be killed (Matthew 2:13-14). 
According to the Bible, an angel warned Joseph in a dream 
of the impending danger, and the family fled immediately 
in the dead of night. 

Adam Elsheimer (1578-1610) interpreted the story 
literally in his influential 1609 painting (Alte Pinakothek, 
Munich, inv. no. 216), which depicts the family traveling by 
lantern light through a dark landscape dramatically 
illuminated by moonlight and the campfire of shepherds. 1 
Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn (1606-1669) also depicted 
the flight of the Holy Family as a nocturnal scene in a small 
painting dated 1627 (Musee des Beaux-Arts, Tours, inv. no. 
1950-13-1) as well as in three etchings from the early 1650s. 5 
Although he may have known these paintings, Cuyp 
was undoubtedly more familiar with Hendrik Goudt's (1583- 
1648) 1613 engraving that reverses Elsheimer's painting, 
placing the dramatically receding diagonal of the trees 
lining the shoreline on the right, 6 and with Rembrandt's 
etchings. As in one of Rembrandt's etchings (Bartsch 55), 
Cuyp represented the Virgin in biblical (Middle Eastern) 
clothing cradling the infant Christ as she sits sidesaddle on 
a donkey led by Joseph in contemporary dress who walks 
on the far side of the animal; in both images a basket with 
the family's possessions is strapped to the donkey. However, 
except for the etching from about 1653 that he reworked 
from a plate by Hercules Seghers (1590-ca. 1638) that has 


Cuyp, The Flight into Egypt 

a light sky (Bartsch 56, iv), Rembrandt portrayed the Holy 
Family traveling at night, whereas Cuyp represented them 
traveling by daylight. 

In depicting the subject as a daytime event, Cuyp 
followed the example of Italianate landscape artists such as 
Cornelis van Poelenburgh (1594/95-1667), for whom the 
Flight into Egypt and especially the Rest on the Flight into 
Egypt were favorite subjects that he set in clear daylight. 

In Poelenburgh's paintings, however, the family and setting 
are arcadian rather than Dutch. Although no painting of 
the subject by Jan Both is known, travelers with donkeys 
appear often in his work and undoubtedly inspired Cuyp's 
depiction of the Holy Family. 

Three versions of the Flight into Egypt have been 
attributed to Cuyp. 7 In each, the landscape dominates the 
biblical subject and Cuyp represents the story as a contem¬ 
porary event taking place, almost unnoticed, in a Dutch 
landscape. The most accomplished, and presumably the last, 
version of the subject by him is the Carter painting. Cuyp's 
smaller painting at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, 

New York, which was probably made slightly earlier, is less 

focused than the Carter painting. 8 The scale of figures in the 
Metropolitan's painting is smaller and the composition is 
more diffuse—the Holy Family moves into the shadows 
in the left foreground, leaving the light center of the com¬ 
position open except for the diminutive woman and child 
who look out over the water at the sunset. In the Carter 
painting, larger figures occupy the foreground, where they 
are the clear focus of the composition. Cuyp used the 
gestures of the herders and the monumental tall, slender 
trees to draw attention to the Holy Family, whom he has 
convincingly integrated into the landscape. Infrared reflec- 
tography reveals that Cuyp struggled with the placement 
of the animals and herders, who were originally larger in 
scale and positioned differently (see Technical Report). 

Throughout his career, Cuyp was a landscape painter 
who used staffage carefully to complement and structure 
his compositions. He painted few religious scenes. When he 
did, as in The Flight into Egypt, the carefully placed and 
positioned figures animate and define the landscape with¬ 
out detracting from the overall theme of light and color. 


Cuyp, The Flight into Egypt 

Fig. 10.1 

Fig. 10.2 

Fig. 10.1 Aelbert Cuyp, View of the Maas near Dordrecht, 
ca. 1647. Oil on wood, 19 Vz x 30 in. (49.5 x 76.2 cm). 
Los Angeles County Museum of Art, Adele S. 
Browning Memorial Collection, donated by Mildred 
Browning Green and Judge Lucius Peyton Green 
(inv. no. 50.43) 

Fig. 10.2 Jan Dirksz. Both, Italian Landscape with Ferry, 
ca. 1652. Oil on canvas, 29% x 35% in. (76 x 91 cm). 
Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam (inv. no. SK-A-52) 


Cuyp, The Flight into Egypt 



Fig. TR10.1 Infrared reflectogram 
Fig. TR10.2 X-radiograph 

The oak panel, which is just under 14 
inch thick, has a cradle that has caused 
very slight undulations on the surface. 

It is composed of three boards with 
tight joins. The top board is 7% inches 
wide, the middle one is io 7 /s inches 
wide, and the bottom, 8 s /s inches wide. 
The vertical measurements of the panel 
vary slightly: the right side is Vs inch 
taller (26% in.) than the left (2 6 5 /s in.). 
Along the very left edge there is an 
incision. The double ground consists of 
a cream-colored ground with a beige or 
pink layer on top. Infrared reflectography 
(IRR) revealed thin, dark underdrawing 
(fig. TR10.1), in particular in the figures 
of the Virgin, Joseph, and their donkey. 1 
The sharp, fairly uniform appearance 
of the lines suggests they were executed 
with brush, pen, or pencil. 

Cuyp painted the sky and clouds directly 
wet-into-wet. Smalt is the primary 
blue pigment he used for the sky. 

A striking contrast was produced by 

applying pink and yellow highlights 
over the dark blue-gray paint of 
the clouds. Several developments in the 
sky are unclear in the X-radiograph 
(fig. TR10.2). The most obvious is a half 
circle of dense brushstrokes at the top 
center, which reminds one of beams 
from the sun. The X-radiograph needs 
further study to explain various 

He painted large parts of the landscape 
over the dry paint of the sky: the distant 
hills on the left side were thinly painted 
over the light yellow paint of the sky, 
and the cliffs on the right were also 
painted fairly thinly with brown paint 
over the sky and clouds. The reflections 
of light on the water were created 
by layering a light-colored paint over 
a warm dark color. 

X-ray fluorescence spectrometry (XRF) 
identified lead white, copper-based 
azurite, ocher, green earth, and lead-tin 
yellow pigments in the paint used for 
the landscape. No phosphorus was found 
in the greens to suggest the presence 
of vivianite, a pigment of grayish-blue 
hue that has been reported in other 

paintings by Cuyp. 2 Yellow lake was 
likely mixed with blue pigments or was 
glazed over blue paint to achieve the 
green color of the foliage. The bluish 
color of the leaves in the foreground 
resulted from the fading or eroding of 
the yellow lake. 3 Pigments throughout 
the painting appear very finely ground. 
Extensive changes made by the artist 
in the lower right of the painting make 
it difficult to understand the buildup 
of paint in that area. It is possible to see, 
however, that the trunk of the largest 
tree has a gray underlayer. 

The X-radiograph and IRR revealed 
a number of changes or developments, 
some of which appear as faint, dark 
shadows on the surface of the painting. 
Two trees, larger than any in the final 
painting, were planned to the right of 
Joseph, closer to the picture plane. 

In the left foreground, Cuyp reduced 
the height of the bushes that he 
had already painted over the water. 


Cuyp, The Flight into Egypt 

Fig. TR10.3 Pentimenti in the group of shepherds 
and piebald horse. The IRR shows the man with 
a hat on horseback in black, while the X-radiograph 
shows the lead white that was used to paint the 
horse he rides. Several other pentimenti exist but 
are less clear. 

As the repaint has aged, it has become 
darker than the surrounding water, and 
the tops of the bushes are today visible 
in normal light. The size and postures 
of the cattle also have some changes, for 
example, the red cow lying to the left in 
the foreground has been shifted from 
its original position. 

Major changes in the group of herds¬ 
men and cattle on the left, visible 
in IRR, are more difficult to interpret. 

A figure on horseback with a dark cloak 
and a dark hat appears directly on top 
of and above the two herdsmen (fig. TR 
10.3). The horse is pointed away from 
the fleeing Holy Family, and the rider 
appears to be twisting to look back at 
them. Comparing the IRR and the 
X-radiograph, it is possible to interpret 
this figure: his body and hat are 
apparent in the IRR because of the 
carbon-black paint that was used. His 
horse was painted with lead white, 
and although this is transparent and 
invisible in IRR, it is very visible in the 
X-radiograph. The use of lead-white 
paint on the horse indicates that Cuyp 
developed the rider and horse beyond 
the underdrawing stage before he 

abandoned them. A large dark shape to 
the right of the piebald horse may be 
a figure. With the exception of the rider 
with the dark hat and his horse, it is not 
possible to tell if all of these pentimenti 
were created at the underdrawing stage 
or later as the painting was developed. 

The Virgin’s cape originally extended 
farther to the right. Cuyp first painted 
the Virgin with a dark bodice and a veil 
with a peak over her forehead before 
adding the purple robe and white 
veil covering her head. This is quite 
visible in IRR and was intended to 
be seen in the painting. 

The condition of the painting is very 
good. There appears to be a hazy bluish 
film in some of the foliage, especially 
noticeable in the foreground. Ultra¬ 
violet light shows a few small, scattered 
restorations, including some along the 
joins. The surface has an even appear¬ 
ance. The varnish is somewhat dirty and 
discolored and does not saturate the 
paints very well. 


1 The painting was first examined without any 
interference bandpass filters and captured 
with the i4oonm filter, which gave the crispest 
resolution and best contrast. 

2 Sprint 2001. 

3 Sprint 2001. 


Cuyp, The Flight into Egypt 


Jan van Goyen 


View of Dordrecht, 1645 

Oil on wood, 25% x 38 in. 

(65.7x96.5 cm) 

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter 



Signed and dated lower center, on the rowboat: 





V iew of Dordrecht is one of at least twenty known 

paintings Jan van Goyen produced between 1641 and 
1655 in which the city of Dordrecht is the setting, 
if not the major subject. 1 Located on an island in the delta at 
the crossroads of the River Maas to the north and the River 
Scheldt to the south, Dordrecht functioned as one of the 
gateways to Zeeland and North Brabant in the Spanish 
Netherlands. 2 In 1641 the famous English diarist John Evelyn 
(1620-1706) visited the city and wrote on 23 July: 

Dort, the onely virgin, and first towne of Holland 3 ... 
is commodiously situated on the river of [Merwede] by 
which it is furnishe'd [with] all German Commodities, 
and especially Rhenish-Wines and Timber: It hath 
almost at the extreamity a very spacious, and venera¬ 
ble Church; a Stately Senat-house wherein was holden 
that famous Synod against the Arminians 1618. 4 

Traveling from the city of Veere on the island of 
Walcheren in Zeeland to Dordrecht, Evelyn probably took 
the ferry ( beurtvaart ) that sailed daily with the tides between 
the two cities. 5 Dordrecht was particularly dependent 
on the elaborate ferry network that provided intercity 
transportation of people and goods throughout the 
Netherlands. It offered a wide range of sailings across the 
Hollandsch Diep to North Brabant, departing twice 
daily to Geertruidenberg and daily to Klundert and Bergen- 
op-Zoom, and also frequently inland toward Germany. 6 

The Grote Kerk, with its enormous square tower that 
could be seen for miles from many directions, clearly 
identifies the city. In the Carter painting and others. Van 
Goyen selected a view that emphasizes the Grote Kerk rather 
than the traditional panorama of Dordrecht viewed across 
the Merwede River, which was favored by such cartogra¬ 
phers as Georg Braun and Franz and Abraham Hogenberg 
(Library of Congress Geography and Map Division, 
Washington, DC, inv. no. 2008627031) and adopted by the 
painters Adam Willaerts (1577-1664) and Aelbert Cuyp 
(1620-1691). Van Goyen represents the city from the Dordtse 
Kil at the point where the Benede Merwede, a tributary 
of the Rhine, flows from the northeast, becomes the Oude 
Maas, and continues on to Rotterdam and the sea. The 
Dordtse Kil—seen in the right foreground of this painting— 
flows southeast to Haringvliet, from which the daily ferries 
from Dordrecht continued to Antwerp. 

Van Goyen's many drawings document his frequent 
travels along the rivers throughout the Netherlands, so it 
can be assumed that he based his composition and the 
details of the landscape on his personal experience. His only 
extant drawing of Dordrecht (Kupferstich-Kabinett der 
Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Dresden, inv. no. 52/072), 
however, appears in a sketchbook he kept during a trip to 
Antwerp and Brussels in 1648, three years after the date 
of the Carter painting. 7 Viewed from the same perspective 
but slightly closer to the city than in the painting, the 

sketch reveals how Van Goyen selectively reduced the scale 
of the surrounding buildings to enhance the presence of 
the church. 

Rather than the large ships of the Dutch East India 
Company (Verenigde Oostindische Compagnie, VOC) and 
the navy in Dordrecht's active port, which were the focus 
of works by Willaerts, Cuyp, and others. Van Goyen carefully 
observed and recorded the activities of fishermen and the 
boats that transported people and cargo between local cities. 
Here he represents a ferry loaded with passengers sailing 
a diagonal course from the lower left toward Dordrecht, 
apparently having come from the Oude Maas—the direction 
of Rotterdam. 8 A rowboat with a man at the bow extending 
a pole with a hook approaches the ferry from the right with 
additional passengers. By aligning a second rowboat behind 
the first. Van Goyen suggests the movement of the boats 
along the Dordtse Kil. Another sailboat passes in the back¬ 
ground to the right, near the western part of the city outside 
the Vuijlpoort, which a late sixteenth-century map notes 
was the location of a number of inns. 9 Beyond this, the tower 
of the city hall can be seen. 

Van Goyen staged the scene, carefully positioning 
the boats and the dark spit of land with fishermen casting 
their nets in the foreground, to suggest space. One need 
only imagine the scene without them to appreciate their 
compositional significance. With the horizon line placed at 
approximately one-quarter the height of the panel, the 
distant shore of Zwijndrecht, quickly sketched with delicate 
films of green paint, melts into the sky on the left. Delicately 
rendered, the silhouette of Dordrecht recedes behind the 
towering Grote Kerk, which seems to sit on the horizon at 
the edge of the city. The church's lofty tower, which was left 
incomplete because the marshy ground could not support 
its full weight, houses the largest carillon in Europe—sixty- 
seven bells—regulated by the tower's four clocks. 

Van Goyen heightened the naturalistic effect of 
his composition by painting swiftly with a monochromatic 
brown palette of glazes with little pigment, reducing his 
costs and allowing him to work more rapidly and efficiently 
than artists who labored with traditional methods of 
applying layers of expensive pigments and glazes. 10 The 
goal of Van Goyen and others who employed the technique 
was to achieve a more naturalistic effect but also to gain 
both fame and profit by producing greater numbers of 
paintings to satisfy the demand for relatively inexpensive 
works. The number of similar views of Dordrecht that 
Van Goyen painted reflects his ability to paint quickly an 
apparently popular composition for the open market 
with variations only of details in the foreground. Rather 
than disdained, paintings produced in this manner were, 
according to contemporary writers, admired by art lovers 
who appreciated the virtuosity of the technique, which 
produced naturalistic effects so swiftly. 11 Jan Orlers, the 
biographer of the city of Leiden, proudly noted that Van 
Goyen's works “were highly valued by all art lovers.''^ 


Van Goyen, View of Dordrecht 



Fig. TR11.1 Infrared reflectogram 

The panel is about % inch thick and 
composed of three boards. The top board 
is 10 inches wide, and the middle and 
lower boards are each about 8 inches 
wide. The panel is 14 th inch higher on 
the right edge than on the left. The 
reverse of the panel is roughly finished 
and beveled. A knot in the wood, which 
is visible on the reverse, is located at the 
upper center, where the bird is painted. 
At the horizontal center, the panel has 
a very slight convex curve. 

The off-white ground contains a large 
proportion of calcium carbonate, which 
allows the wood grain to show through 
on the painted surface. Infrared 
reflectography (IRR) detected a design 
carried out with brush and paint that 
contains carbon black. This may be 
Van Goyen's initial design that he 
worked up with local color, but it also 
plays a large part in the final image, 

as in the work of other Dutch landscape 
painters (fig. TRn.i). Indeed, there 
are no clear divisions between painting 
and underdrawing stages with this 
landscape. Brushed outlines done with 
a medium containing carbon-black 
pigment are found throughout. They 
are particularly visible in IRR for two 
reasons: (l) because of the good contrast 
between the IR-reflective ground 
and the IR-absorbing black of the under¬ 
drawing or lay-in; and (2) because so 
many of the overlying paints (blues, 
browns, and copper greens) are trans¬ 
parent in IRR. Examination with 
a digital microscope showed that some 
of these brushed lines are covered with 
paint while others are left fully visible. 

Paint ranges from thin, fluid darks 
to thicker light colors, which may have 
some low impasto. Paint was applied 
with various sizes of brushes and 
a variety of strokes. Smaller brushes 
were used for the landscape and ships. 

The large sail at left was painted with 
multiple narrow brushstrokes next to 
one another running uninterrupted 
from the top of the sail to its base (fig. 
TR11.2). The artist laid in the blue paint 
of the sky and the light paint of the 
clouds with larger brushes and vigorous 
brushwork, which stand out in the 
X-radiograph (fig. TR11.3). He created 
the subtle shadows of the clouds with 
warm, transparent glazes and thin, 
opaque paints of various densities. The 
warm tone of the wood showing 
through the thinner applications of 
paint creates additional variety. The 
paint for the sky contains smalt and 
lead-white pigments, and the glazes are 
various mixtures of lake and/or ocher. 


Van Goyen, View of Dordrecht 

The foreground browns (containing 
black, ochers, and smalt pigments) were 
thinly applied over the ground so as 
not to cover it entirely; a crimson glaze 
was applied in some areas of the 
foreground. The artist painted the trees 
into the wet paint of the sky with paint 
containing largely copper-based 
pigments. He glazed the foliage with 
what now appears brown to mauve or 
brownish-yellow in color. X-ray 
fluorescent spectrometry and visual 
analysis with the digital microscope 
suggest that the glaze is a copper- 
resinate that was originally green but, 
as often happens, has discolored. 

The sky and landscape were well along 
when the boats and figures were added. 
The architecture and boats were painted 
mostly alia prima with thin light 
and dark paints, but some details were 

added with thicker paint. The hands 
of the church clock and the wings of the 
windmill at right contain lead-tin 
yellow pigment mixed with chalk. The 
dull off-white particles of the chalk 
pigment mute the colors and make them 
less opaque. The hands of the clock 
appear to be orange or yellow. The dark 
paint of the signature is thick in parts 
but is somewhat abraded. 

X-radiography showed no obvious 
changes. The painting is in good condi¬ 
tion, but there are some restorations. 

In the sky, fine horizontal cracks in the 
paint and light abrasion have been 
carefully toned. There is some resto¬ 
ration close to the center along the join 
of the top two boards. The bird painted 
over the knot in the upper center also 
has some restoration. The varnish has 
grayed or yellowed somewhat and fluo¬ 
resces bluish-green in ultraviolet light. 


Van Goyen, View of Dordrecht 

Jan van Goyen 





View of Arnhem, 1646 Gift of Mr. an d Mrs. Edward William Carter 

Oil on wood, i 7 y 16 X 2 il 4 in. M.2009.106.20 

(43.7 x54 cm) 

Signed and dated lower right edge: 1 VGOYEN 16(46] 




B etween 1633 and 1646 Jan van Goyen painted 

approximately twenty views of Arnhem, the capital 
of the province of Gelderland located on the Rhine 
River in the eastern Netherlands. The paintings represent 
the distinctive silhouette of the city from either of two 
perspectives: from the river, emphasizing the diagonal 
sweep of the shoreline and the anecdotal activity of the busy 
port; 2 or from a hill northwest of the city, where travelers 
pass along a road leading to Arnhem and where, in the 
distance, the serpentine course of the river is visible as it 
flows from the east. Although his only extant drawings of 
the city are from a sketchbook dated 1650-51, the accuracy 
of the city’s profile and the general description of the 
surrounding countryside indicate that Van Goyen, a prolific 
draftsman, based his paintings on now-lost drawings he 
made on location. 

The Carter painting is one of the nine pictures in 
which Van Goyen represented the view from the Veluwe 
hills northwest of the city, where the road from Utrecht 
to Zutphen passed Arnhem and met the southern road to 
Nijmegen. 3 A comparison of the present work dated 1646 
to Van Goyen’s first View of Arnhem, which was painted more 
than a decade earlier, in 1633, 4 and to his contemporary 
versions from 1646, in Berlin and Diisseldorf, 5 reveals the 
evolution of the image and the success of the Carter paint¬ 
ing in which the foreground is unusually open. Absent 
are the compositional conventions—a tree and a dark, 
diagonal wedge of shadow or hillside—that Van Goyen 
used to introduce landscapes in the early 1630s. 

The limited staffage in the Carter painting is absorbed 
by the shadows and by the rich play of dark brown glazes 
through which the tone of the panel is partially visible. 

In the shadows of the foreground, two men rest, silhouetted 
against the sunlit road where travelers pass. A two-wheeled 
cart drawn by a horse and rider approaches the city from 
which a covered wagon drawn by two oxen and a man 
on horseback have departed. Almost totally obscured by late 
afternoon shadows, cattle graze on the hillside in the right 
foreground. Even the city itself seems to have been swal¬ 
lowed by the hillside. Only the distinctive massive square 
tower of the Grote Kerk and the double towers of the 
Sint-Walburgiskerk break the low horizon, which otherwise 
stretches uninterrupted across the surface of the panel. 
Moved left of the central position that it occupies in the 1633 
version, the Grote Kerk stands guard over the broad valley 
through which the river zigzags. Thinly applied light 
blue, gray, and green paint suggests the shimmering effect 
of light reflected on the water and draws the eye beyond 
the dark hillside, through the flat river valley to the minute 
steeples in the far distance. There, narrow horizontal 
strokes of paint compress the space beneath the shifting 
clouds of the vast sky to produce the subtle atmospheric 
unity of the picture. 

Painting swiftly with a limited palette of thin paint 
and brown glazes. Van Goyen was able to economically 
produce multiple versions of his views of Arnhem and other 
cities to satisfy the market for inexpensive paintings of the 
local landscape. By the early seventeenth century, the demand 
for naturalistic views of the Dutch countryside had replaced 
that for the fantastic landscapes of the previous century. The 
change probably reflects the growing strength and signifi¬ 
cance of the Dutch cities as well as the interest in travel. 

On one of the major routes by wagon from Utrecht 
to Zutphen and by boat from Nijmegen and other cities 
along the Rhine, Arnhem was frequently mentioned in 
travel journals and guidebooks. Travelers passing through 
Arnhem often chose to halt and stay at an inn to explore 
the city. Guides could be hired to show them the city’s 
monuments and recount the local history. Tourism had 
always been a part of travel, but it was not until the prolif¬ 
eration of personal travel journals and guidebooks in the 
late seventeenth century that the invitation to share in such 
experiences was extended to the wider public. An excerpt 
from the account of the English traveler John Farrington, 
who visited Arnhem in 1710, is characteristic. 

On the 17th, as soon as it was light, we hired a guide 
and went to see the city.... The walks on the walls 
round the city are very pleasant, the streets of the city 
generally broad, and the town is well enough built. It 
is situated on the river Rhine, the religion is Calvinist 
but the toleration of other sects is unlimited.... The 
chief buildings in the town are the court of the Heer 
van Rozendaal, the court of the late King as stadholder 
of the province, the Arsenal and the churches, which 
are very good. In the Great Church is the tomb of the 
last duke of Guelders, which is a very good one.... 

The weather was very good and the wind at east. About 
half an hour after eight we left Arnhem and took 
[a] waggon for Zutphen. 6 

Van Goyen’s View of Arnhem portrays the city from 
a distance so that its major monuments, including its 
famous views of the Rhine Valley, are clearly identifiable. 
Topographical paintings of local landmarks may have 
been acquired by the inhabitants of those cities. The 
contemporary interest in travel and tourism, however, 
suggests that the paintings may have had a wider appeal 
among those who could not regularly go to the hills or 
the ramparts to view the landscape. Among these, of course, 
may have been those nostalgic for their native cities, but 
there may also have been others who were true tourists J 


Van Goyen, View of Arnhem 



Fig. TR12.1 Digital micrograph (175X magnification) 
of the top edge of the painting showing the panel, 
ground, and paint layers of the sky 

The panel is approximately 14 inch 
thick and cradled. The central horizon¬ 
tal member of the cradle is engraved 
with the name de Wild. About 9 14 inches 
from the top of the panel there is 
a tight horizontal split or join. Insect 
damage is visible on the bottom edge 
of the panel. 

Paint rolls over the edges of the wood 
on the left and right sides, indicating 
that they are intact. The top and bottom 
of the painting, however, have been 
cut. The bottom cut removed the lower 
part of some of the signature and the 
date, which were written in fairly thick 
dark mauve paint: VGOYEN is mostly 
present, but the top of the Y and much 
of the E appear strengthened, and the 

very lowest parts of the Y, the E, and the 
N are missing. The first two digits of 
the truncated date could be read as 16 , 
but the third digit is difficult to read 
because it is cut off and toned; the 
fourth digit could be the top of a 6. 

The panel has a thin, off-white ground 
that probably contains mostly chalk 
(fig. TR12.1). The translucent layer 
allows the warm color of the wood to 
show through to the surface of the 
painting and affect the overall tonality 
of the landscape. Infrared reflectogra- 
phy (IRR) 1 showed a minimal amount of 
underdrawing. Thin lines designating 
the horizon were found beneath 
the paint. These are now visible to the 
unaided eye due to the increased 
transparency of the aged paint. Some 
lines were also found in the architecture 
and in some of the smaller buildings 

on the right edge of the city. Not all 
underdrawn lines were covered with 
paint—many were left visible and 
incorporated into the final composition 
(fig. TR12.2). It was not possible to 
determine with certainty what Van 
Goyen used for the underdrawing, but 
the thin lines suggest it is more likely 
to have been a brush as opposed to 
charcoal or black chalk, both of which 
have a powdery, broken-up appearance. 

This tonal painting was created with 
a number of layers of thin, translucent 
paint. The artist first applied the darker 
colors of the landscape followed by the 
lighter colors of the sky and landscape. 


Van Goyen, View of Arnhem 

Light blue, gray, and white/cream- 
colored paints were applied with brushy, 
thin applications in the sky, where 
the clouds were developed with very 
thin, warm glazes, much as in View 
of Dordrecht (cat. no. n). The translucent 
browns and greens of the landscape 
are applied with small, squiggled 
strokes; the lighter colors on the surface 
are dashes and various other small 
strokes with some relief. Buildings, 
vessels, and figures were painted on top 
of the landscape paint. The warm color 
of the wood imparts a pinkish tonality 
to the painting that helps to model 
forms and gives brilliance to the light 
colors of the sky and landscape. 

X-ray fluorescence spectrometry (XRF) 
and examination with a digital micro¬ 
scope identify, among other pigments, 
lead white and smalt in the sky 
and lead-tin yellow and copper-based 
pigments in the landscape. 

Restoration is both under and on top 
of the varnish. The wood grain in the 
sky, which had become more apparent, 
has been toned. There is very little 
restoration in the landscape. Two 
parallel diagonal scratches, now toned, 
run from the mid-sky at the right edge 
to the landscape. The two birds to the 
right of the large church at center 
consist of simple dark strokes and are 
certainly original. The other birds 
are painted differently, and they may 
have had some restoration. The bird at 
the upper left appears to be painted 
over an indentation in the wood. Ultra¬ 
violet light shows a yellowish fluorescing 
varnish. The coating, which was sprayed, 
is quite thick. 


i No interference bandpass filters were used in the 
capturing of the IRR. 


Van Goyen, View of Arnhem 


Willem Claesz. Heda 


Still Life with Tobacco, Beer, 
and Wine, 1637 

Oil on wood, 1654 x 2i54 in. 

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward W. Carter 



(42.2 x 54.3 cm) 



Signed and dated left of center, on edge of table: 


till Life with Tobacco, Beer, and Wine belongs to a distinct 
category of still-life painting called tabakje or toebakje , 
“little tobacco,” which was introduced in Haarlem 
during the late 1620s by Willem Claesz. Heda and Pieter 
Claesz. (see cat. no. 8). Typical of these, the Carter painting 
includes clay pipes, a crumpled piece of paper containing 
tobacco, and an earthenware brazier around which are 
scattered zwavelstokjes used like modern matches to light 
pipes. A glass of frothy beer, recommended to cool the throat 
when smoking, a pewter jug, an overturned silver beaker, 
and a delicate/^o/z venise wineglass complete the still life. 

The compositional principles employed by Heda in 
Still Life with Tobacco, Beer, and Wine are similar to those that 
characterize his still lifes of simple meals as well as the 
contemporary monochrome landscapes painted by Salomon 
van Ruysdael (see cat. nos. 27,28), Jan van Goyen (see cat. 
nos. 11,12), and others. Thinly painted, employing a limited 
palette of warm ocher and cool olive-gray, the composition 
is organized according to a visual diagonal dominated 
by a pewter jug. A diagonal shaft of light cast from the upper 
left animates the neutral back wall and provides a counter¬ 
balance to the objects. 

Probably painting directly from objects he arranged 
and observed in his studio rather than from individual 
drawings, Heda created a cohesive composition in terms of 
light and form. 1 The low vantage point, which makes the 
objects appear to overlap, contributes to the viewer's reading 
of pictorial depth. Heda increased the perception of space 
by pulling the green cloth back to reveal the corner of 
the table on which he carefully placed the pipes, overturned 
silver beaker, and the brazier viewed from the corner. 

A plate precariously balanced on the table's edge extends 
forward. Subtle tonal gradations define the volumes of 
the objects and capture the effect of their actual shadows 
and reflections: for example, the reflections of the handle of 
the pewter jug and the silver beaker on the belly of the 
jug, the reflection of the brazier on the round metal box, 
and the windows on the can and beer glass. 

Tobacco was introduced from the New World to 
England in 1560 by Sir Francis Drake and brought by sailors 
through Dutch ports to the Netherlands by the 1580s. 

The Dutch also encountered tobacco in the Caribbean, when 
they were collecting salt, hides, and pearls, and later in 

North America. In 1620 the New Netherlands colony began 
exporting tobacco from the English colonies of Virginia 
and Maryland. Shipped first on Dutch and later on English 
vessels, tobacco from the English colonies and from the 
environs of Venezuela became one of the most profitable 
sources of revenue for the Dutch West India Company 
(established in 1621). Soon, Amsterdam became the major 
Continental market for tobacco leaves. 2 Encouraged by 
Amsterdam's tobacco merchants and manufacturers, 
between 1610 and 1620, farmers in the central and eastern 
parts of the Netherlands began to cultivate a domestic 
crop of tobacco that was typically used to cut the more 
expensive imported products 

During the early seventeenth century, the use and 
abuse of tobacco was actively debated. Similar to today's 
disputes about marijuana, the Dutch considered tobacco to 
have remedial and medicinal value but distrusted and 
generally decried its recreational use. In 1574 the Flemish 
physician and herbalist Rembert Dodoens (1516-1585) had 
noted the narcotic or stupefying effect tobacco had on its 
users. 4 Many writers and preachers expressed concern about 
the lower classes, especially sailors, who wasted their money 
on “drinking” smoke, which they could not do without. 

The excesses of the lower classes were frequently depicted 
by Adriaen Brouwer (1605-1638), David Teniers the Younger 
(1610-1690) (fig. 13.1), and others. So-called merry company 
scenes painted by Willem Pietersz. Buytewech (1591/92- 
1624), Dirck Hals (1591-1656), and their numerous followers 
illustrate that tobacco was also associated with the social 
deviance of sophisticated dandies who frequented inns 
where “drinking” smoke as well as beer took place amid 
gambling and whoring. 

Heda's earliest known painting with smoking para¬ 
phernalia is dated 1628 (Museum Bredius, The Hague, 
inv. no. 52-1946), the same year that Petrus Scriverius (1576- 
1660) published Saturnalia ; written in Latin and translated 
by Samuel Ampzing (1590-1639) in 1630, the pamphlet 
was a major indictment against tobacco. 5 Heda's inclusion 
of a skull in the Bredius painting, like Scriverius's illustra¬ 
tion for his title page that represents a skull resting on 
two pipes (“Vanitas,” title page for Petrus Scriverius Satvrnalia, 
1630, Rijksmuseum Research Library, Amsterdam, call 
number 328 M 6), warns the viewer of the brevity of life and 


Heda, Still Life with Tobacco, Beer, and Wine 

the need to focus on spiritual concerns rather than earthly 
pleasures. 6 Heda affirms the reference to vanitas in the 
Bredius still life by including an open pocket watch and an 
empty overturned rummer resting against the skull, 
a device his friend Pieter Claesz. often employed, 7 adding to 
one painting (Mauritshuis, The Hague, inv. no. 943) the 
inscription, “Het glas is leegh. De tijd is om. / De keers is 
uyt. Den mens is stom” (The glass is empty. Time is up. 

The candle is out. The man is mute). 

Previous writers have also regarded the Carter paint¬ 
ing as a cautionary reference to transience. 8 The overt 
references to moralizing found in the Bredius still life are, 
however, absent in the Carter painting, dated nine years 
later. There is no skull, and what has been assumed to 
be a pocket watch—a familiar reference to the passage of 
time—is actually a round, metal (probably brass) tobacco box 
similar to one in the collection of Colonial Williamsburg, 
Virginia (fig. 13.2). 9 Tobacco boxes are typically portrayed 
together with pipes, a brazier, and zwavelstokjes, as in Pieter 
Claesz/s Still Life with Jug, Herring, and Smoking Requisites, 
dated 1644 (Harold Samuel Collection, Guildhall Art 
Gallery, City of London, inv. no. 3714), in which the bowl of 
a pipe rests on the open box, and in the Bredius still life, in 
which it is oval. 10 

The attitude toward smoking had begun to change 
by the late 1630s. In 1636 the Dordrecht physician Johan 
van Beverwijck (1594-1647) recommended in his Schatder 
gesontheyt (Treasury of Good Health) that people “drink” 

tobacco as a prophylactic against the plague, then raging in 
the Netherlands. On its more general use, however, he 
noted that opinion was divided. 11 Ivan Gaskell has suggested 
that the change in attitude toward tobacco among the 
middle and upper classes was related to the economic 
importance of the tobacco industry in the Netherlands. 11 
Amsterdam and Rotterdam were the principal Continental 
ports of entry for tobacco, the majority of which was 
then processed and exported. Domestically grown tobacco 
also had become an important cash crop in the Netherlands. 
Refinements in the design of the clay pipe—especially 
extending the length of the stem so that the smoke cooled— 
contributed to the acceptance of smoking by members 
of the middle and upper classes. 13 Pipes made of English clay 
were manufactured in the Dutch city of Gouda and shipped 
to other cities, inclu-ding Amsterdam, where the pipe 
market was located on the east side of the Nieuwezijds 
Voorburgwal (see cat. no. 2). 14 

Thus, while it is possible that while Heda's contempo¬ 
raries continued to associate smoking and drinking 
with transience and vanitas, the significance for both the 
artist and the viewer of Still Life with Tobacco, Beer, and 
Wine may have had more to do with the aesthetic appeal of 
the harmonious display of familiar objects than moralizing. 
The long-stemmed pipes and refined objects that demon¬ 
strate the artist's skill in depicting different shapes and 
materials may also have appealed to those purchasing the 
painting for their reference to the popular, and by then 
more socially acceptable, practice of smoking. 


Heda, Still Life with Tobacco, Beer, and Wine 

Fig. 13.1 

Fig. 13.2 

Fig. 13.1 David Teniers the Younger (1610-1690), 

The Smoker, ca. 1640. Oil on panel, 17 14 x 13 H in. 

(43.8 x 33.7 cm). Los Angeles County Museum of Art, 
William Randolph Hearst Collection (inv. no. 47.29.18) 

Fig. 13.2 English smoking pipes and a Dutch tobacco 
box, ca. 1690-1720. The Colonial Williamsburg 


Heda, Still Life with Tobacco, Beer, and Wine 



Fig. TR13.1 Reverse of the wood panel 

Fig. TR13.2 X-radiograph showing adjustments 
such as the dense paint around the pitcher 

Fig. TR13.3 The earlier positions of both the jug and 
glass were evident in the IRR. 

The wood panel is approximately 3 /s 
inch thick and in good condition with 
only a slight warp and small wood 
losses at the corners. The reverse is 
a little rough, and the bevels are notice¬ 
ably irregular (fig. TR13.1). 

The medium-thin, cream-colored 
ground transmits the grain and warmth 
of the wood to affect the appearance of 
the painting. Raking light picks out the 
wood grain and the impastoed paint. 
Infrared reflectography (IRR) revealed 
fine, sharp lines that mark out part 
of the design; some of these can be seen 
with the naked eye. The thinness of the 
lines suggests that they were done with 
a fine brush or an implement such 
as a pen, graphite pencil, or metalpoint. 
However, because many of these lines 
are also visible in normal light, it is 
difficult to confirm that they are in fact 

Heda laid in the design and shadows 
with translucent, dark brown paint. 
Over this first layer he brushed out local 
colors from thick to thin to achieve fine 
gradations from light to dark. Using 
larger brushes, he energetically applied 
the background paint, which contains 
primarily lead white and ochers. The 
green paint of the tablecloth, which 
contains copper-based blue or green, 
ocher, lead-tin yellow, and white 
pigments, was brushed thinly over the 
dark underpaint. The silvery appear¬ 
ance of the tabletop was achieved by 
scumbling a light-colored paint 
containing ocher-umber and lead-white 
pigments over the dark underpaint. 

The items on the table each exhibit 
some notable painting techniques. The 
glass vessels were painted with fine 
strokes and washes of thin paint over 
the background color. The wine in the 
glass was indicated with a thin appli¬ 
cation of paint colored predominantly 
with red lake. The surface of the 
wine where it touches the front of the 
glass has a fascinating construction 

of two nearly adjacent layers. The lower 
layer of paint contains pigments of 
white chalk and possibly iron oxide for 
a warm, translucent white, while the 
layer above contains mostly lead white 
for a bright, cool, opaque white. The 
eye perceives the illusion of liquid but 
cannot by itself distinguish the differ¬ 
ent whites. 

The shaded side of the beaker was 
rendered with a thin layer of gray paint. 
The etched design on the metal beaker 
was painted with dark paint in several 
rows of regular loops or figure eights. 
The thickest paints describe the white 
paper and the stems of the pipes. The 
glowing ashes were accomplished with 
multiple fine strokes of thick paint of 
various tones, which contain the 
pigments vermilion, lead-tin yellow, 
ochers, and lead white. The tobacco has 
lively brushwork done with fine 


Heda, Still Life with Tobacco, Beer, and Wine 

brushes. The brazier was laid in with 
an ocher-colored paint that was 
partially covered with a pinkish one. 

X-radiography and IRRshow changes 
and adjustments that occurred during 
the painting stage, particularly in 
the placement of vessels on the table 
(fig. TR13.2), and some of these adjust¬ 
ments are visible in normal viewing 
conditions. For instance, the pewter jug 
and the crystal wineglass were origi¬ 
nally closer together: the body of the 
jug was painted farther to the right and 
the glass farther to the left (fig. TR13.3). 
However, the handle of the jug was 
originally farther to the left, so that the 
jug may have been larger, viewed from 
a different angle, or perhaps was a 
different shape. These two objects were 
painted in with a carbon-black pigment 
before being adjusted. 

The artist signed in deep violet-red 
paint (probably a lake) on the dry paint 
of the brown table; he then scumbled 
a light brownish color on top to create 
a more silvery appearance consistent 
with the overall effect of the table. The 

signature sits proud on the surface and 
appears in good state. Examination 
of the date with higher magnification 
showed that the 163 is original; however, 
the last digit is difficult to read since 
it appears damaged and restored. The 
three horizontal lines beneath the 
date may have original paint but seem 
mostly restored. 

The painting reads well and remains 
strong. There is some abrasion due to 
solvent damage. Ultraviolet light 
exposed restorations and toning of the 
wood grain in the background and 
in the lower left corner. The wineglass 
is somewhat abraded and lightly 
enhanced. The edges of the painting 
appear worn for about % inch into 
the painting. The varnish, semimatte 
and uniform, does not saturate the 
paints. Under magnification it appears 
whitish as if wax had been added. 

The surface has a dense, ocher-tinged 
fluorescence in ultraviolet light, 
possibly because of some addition. 


Heda, Still Life with Tobacco, Beer, and Wine 

Jan van der Heyden 





The Herengracht, Amsterdam, Viewed 
from the Leliegracht, ca. 1666-70 
Oil on wood, 1314 x 15 s /s in. 

(33-7 x 39.7 cm) 

Signed at the right, on the quay: VH 

Partial gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter 
and purchased with funds provided by The 
Ahmanson Foundation, the Mr. and Mrs. Allan C. 
Balch Collection by exchange, and Hannah L. Carter 


J an van der Heyden painted at least four views of the 
west side of the bend in the old section of the 
Herengracht (Gentlemen's Canal). 1 The location of some 
of the grandest patrician houses built in the seventeenth 
century, it remains one of the most prestigious addresses in 
Amsterdam (fig. 14.1). In all but the Carter painting. Van 
der Heyden represents the canal from the south (fig. 14.2). 
Here he faces the opposite direction, which allows him 
to take advantage of the bend in the canal to create a more 
dynamic composition. Viewed from a low vantage point, 
probably from a boat, the reinforced corner of the intersec¬ 
tion of the Herengracht and the Leliegracht rises in the 
foreground, marking the start of the dramatic sweep of the 
canal's retaining wall toward the bridge by the Warmoessluis. 
The sudden reduction in the scale of the trees bordering the 
canal, dipping to reveal the sunlit mansions for which the 
Herengracht is known, accentuates the bend in the canal. 
Beneath the blue sky with its billowing fair-weather clouds, 
light dances on the water, through the bridge, and between 
the trees, creating a lively pattern of light and shadow that 
integrates the composition and counterbalances the precise 
detail that characterizes Van der Heyden's work. 

According to his earliest biographer, Arnold Houbraken 
(1660-1719), Van der Heyden drew from life and later exe¬ 
cuted the scene on panel. Infrared reflectography (IRR) of 
the Carter painting reveals an assured underdrawing of 
the buildings, canal, and trees with limited pentimenti and 
no perspectival marks, suggesting that Van der Heyden 
may have partially transferred the design from a now-lost 
compositional drawing of the buildings based on drawings 
made on the site (see Technical Report). Arie Wallert has 
reported similar findings for other paintings by the artist 
that have been studied with IRR. 2 Although virtually no 
preparatory sketches for Van der Heyden's paintings exist, 
his employment of transfer drawings is also indicated by 
a red chalk counterproof of the well-developed lost prepara¬ 
tory drawing for View of the Oudezijds Voorhurgwal with the 
OudeKerk in Amsterdam (Mauri tshuis. The Hague, inv. no. 868) 
as well as by the few extant drawings he made in preparation 
for the illustrations in Beschryvingdernieuwlijks uitgevonden en 
geoctrojeerdeslang-brand-spuiten en haarewijzevan hrand-hlussen, 
tegenwoordigbinnenAmsterdam ingebruikzijnde. ... (Description 
of the Newly Invented and Patented Fire Hose Engines 
with Water Hoses and the Method of Fighting Fires Now 
Used in Amsterdam), the book he and his son Jan published 
on firefighting in Amsterdam in 1690. Starting with draw¬ 
ings he made of the actual architecture and setting. Van der 
Heyden created the composition, often only loosely based 
on the actual scene. Once he had finalized the composition, 
he covered the reverse of the drawing with chalk or charcoal 
and used a stylus to transfer the outlines of the design to 
the prepared panel or copperplate, making minor freehand 

adjustments. The transfer process undoubtedly weakened 
or destroyed the drawings, explaining their disappearance.^ 

Van der Heyden was a keen observer of the visual 
effects of light filtered through the trees and reflected on 
the buildings and still water of the canal. 4 His ability to 
translate these impressions into paint is also evident in his 
treatment of the mortar between the bricks on the wall 
parallel to the picture plane, where water from the pump 
has stained the brick. Along the receding wall of the 
Herengracht, where he applied paint to suggest shadows 
and reflections of light, the texture of the bricks appears 
more uniform, unaltered by atmospheric perspective. 

Houbraken remarked about Van der Heyden's detail: 
“He painted every little stone in the building so minutely 
that one could clearly see the mortar in the grooves in the 
foreground as well as the background.... He also took into 
account the diminishing of the stones according to the 
reduction in size of the buildings.'' 5 Houbraken suspected 
that the artist had “invented a means whereby... he could 
accomplish things that seem impossible with the customary 
ways of painting.'' 6 

An ingenious engineer who, with his brother Nicolaas, 
invented the fire-hose pump and introduced streetlights 
to Amsterdam, Jan van der Heyden devised new techniques 
to render detailed brickwork and foliage in his paintings. 

In 1800 Bernardus de Bosch, a distant relative of Van der 
Heyden's, delivered a lecture in which he discussed the artist's 
prentenschilderijen (literally, “print paintings''). 7 According 
to De Bosch, the artist used prints made from etched or 
engraved copperplates of different sizes and shapes to trans¬ 
fer patterns of bricks, cobblestones, windows, and doors 
to the prepared surface of a painting. Although there is no 
evidence that he glued paper to the painting, microscopic 
examination of the Carter painting and others confirms 
that Van der Heyden probably transferred patterns from 
paper printed with black and sometimes light colors to 
achieve the effect of rough mortar and other details praised 
by connoisseurs. 8 For the leaves on the trees, the artist 
apparently used yet another technique that was far more 
efficient than a traditional brush: he dipped small pieces of 
lichen or moss in different colors of paint. In this way he 
created the realistic impression of individual leaves massed 
on the branches. 9 

Scholars have often questioned whether Van der 
Heyden employed optical devices to achieve the appearance 
of realism in his paintings. 10 Most recently, writing about the 
views of the Herengracht including the Carter painting, 
Peter Sutton noted, “the visual brilliance, the ways in which 
the images are composed and cropped, as well as scalar 
juxtapositions could have readily been influenced by the 
experience of viewing comparable prospects in a camera 
obscura.'' 11 The way in which the height of the trees rises 


Van der Heyden, The Herengracht, Amsterdam, Viewed from the Leliegracht 

both with the wall of the canal in the right foreground and 
the distant bridge suggested to John Walsh and Cynthia 
Schneider that Van der Heyden may have used a concave lens, 
which would collapse distances. 12 While Van der Heyden 
probably did employ an optical device in developing the 
composition of the Carter painting, it appears that he may 
have used it only for the canal itself and not for the buildings. 
Instead, the buildings seem to follow a more traditional 
diagonal line of one-point recession recommended in popu¬ 
lar treatises on perspective and followed in Van der Heyden's 
other views of the scene from the opposite direction. 

As in many of his other paintings. Van der Heyden 
here took liberties in depicting the houses along the bend in 
the Herengracht while retaining the appearance of reality. 
Rising above the trees, lit by the brilliant sunlight, the 
buildings depicted are, left to right, Herengracht 182-170 
(fig. 14.3). 13 On the far left at number 182 is the large, double 
house known as the Sonnewyzer Huis; next to it, number 
180, a tall building with a scalloped roof profile that actually 
stood on the location, has been reduced in scale so that it 
appears similar to the two houses at 176 and 178. On the far 
right, barely visible through the trees, is the famous 
Bartolotti Huis (170 and 172), which, like the Sonnewyzer 
Huis, was designed in the style of Hendrick de Keyser 
the Elder (1565-1621). 14 The major focus of this painting is 
number 174, immediately to the left of the Bartolotti Huis. 
Acquired in 1641 for 36,365 guilders, the house was owned 
by Abraham Alewijn (1607-1679), a linen merchant and 
East Indies trader. His brother Frederick Alewijn (1606- 
1665) lived at number 182, the Sonnewyzer Huis that had 
been acquired in 1630 by their father, Dirck Dircksz. Alewijn 
(1571-1637), a linen merchant and prominent landowner 
and representative of the Beemster, one of the major land 
reclamation projects in the Netherlands. As the eldest son, 
Frederick had inherited the house on the Herengracht 
and the property in the Beemster. 15 Both he and his brother 
also shared in the division of their father's art collection 
in 1637. 16 Following Frederick's death in 1665, the approxi¬ 
mate date of the painting, the property passed to his son 
Dirck Alewijn (1644-1687), who is portrayed with his 
wife, Agatha Bicker (1647-1716), in companion portraits 
by Nicolaes Maes (1634-1693) now at the Norton 
Simon Museum, Pasadena (inv. nos. F.1972.43.3.1.P and 
F.1972.43.3.2. P). B 

Although the specificity of the scene suggests that 
the painting could have been a commission, possibly 
by a member of the Alewijn family, there is no evidence to 
support the theory. The painting remained in Van der 
Heyden's possession until his death in 1712, almost fifty years 
after it was painted. In an inventory dated 1692 the artist 
described the painting as “the Herengracht, Amsterdam, 
Viewed from the Leliegracht.'' In the inventory of Van der 
Heyden's widow, who died shortly after her husband in 1712, 
the painting is described as the bend in the Herengracht 
with the Warmoessluys in the distance. 18 Among the known 
works by Van der Heyden, only the Carter painting matches 
this description. 

The Herengracht, Amsterdam, Viewed from the Leliegracht 
reflects the contemporary market for images of popular 
tourist attractions in books, prints, and paintings, including 
Emanuel de Witte's paintings of the tomb of William 
the Silent (see cat. no. 35) and Gerrit Berckheyde's of the 
Amsterdam Town Hall (see cat. no. 2), as well as the numer¬ 
ous views of the bleaching fields of Haarlem by Jacob van 
Ruisdael (1628/29-1682). Scenes of foreign cities and country 
houses appear throughout Van der Heyden's oeuvre, but 
paintings of Amsterdam predominate, reflecting his pride 
in the famous city, which dominated the economy of the 
Netherlands and attracted attention for its architecture and 
tree-lined canals. Foreign visitors often commented in 
their travel journals on the wealth of greenery in Dutch 
towns, where trees were planted not only for protection 
from the wind and sun but also for their aesthetic effect and 
the transforming capacity of color, fragrance, regularity, 
and ornament, turning public spaces into pleasurable 
experiences capable of recalling the countryside. In 1641, 
for example, the English diarist John Evelyn (1620-1706) 
wrote that in Amsterdam nothing surprised him more than 
the straight, uniform streets, “especially, being so fre¬ 
quently planted and shaded with the beautifull lime trees, 
set in rowes before every man's house, affording a very 
ravishing prospect.'' 19 


Van der Heyden, The Herengracht, Amsterdam, Viewed from the Leliegracht 

Fig. 14.1 

Fig. 14.2 


Fig. 14.1 The Herengracht, 2013 

Fig. 14.2 Jan van der Heyden, Houses on the Herengracht, 
n.d. Oil on panel, 14 Vs x 1 7% in. (35.9 x 44.6 cm). 
Edward and Sally Speelman Collection, London 

Fig. 14.3 CasparJacobsz. Philips (ca. 1732-1789), 
detail of “Diagram of Houses on Herengracht,” 
from Allen de huizen op de Heeren-en Keizers-grachten der 
stad Amsterdam, ca. 1790. Getty Research Institute, 

Los Angeles, Special Collections (inv. no. 87-B2070) 


Van der Heyden, The Herengracht, Amsterdam, Viewed from theLeliegracht 



Fig. TR14.1 Infrared reflectogram 

Fig. TR14.2 Detail of IRR showing transferred and 
freehand lines in trees 

The wood panel, which is about 3 /i 6 inch 
thick, has been thinned and cradled. 
There are no bevels. Thin wood strips 
(Vs inch wide) are attached to each 
side with nails. The thin pink ground 
barely covers the wood. With magnifica¬ 
tion, the wood of the panel is visible 
in numerous spots. 

Van der Heyden made minor changes 
from the drawing while painting, 
particularly in the architecture. The 
X-radiograph does not show any 
obvious changes, however. Extensive 
and detailed underdrawing was 
observed in infrared reflectography 
(IRR) (fig. TR14.1). 1 Although there are 
several small pentimenti or changes 
(mainly in the architecture), Van der 
Heyden stayed close to the underdraw¬ 
ing and changed very little in the actual 
painting. The changes he did make 
simplified the composition by omitting 
small, fussy details. Close examination 
suggested that he may have used more 

than one technique for the underdraw¬ 
ing: a transfer drawing that was 
developed with freehand drawing and 
that included brushed washes. 

The numerous doubled lines, stops, 
starts, and differences in line intensity 
seen in the IRR suggest that Van der 
Heyden may have transferred at least 
part of the design (the central archi¬ 
tecture and trees on the right side) from 
a drawing on paper. This was a tech¬ 
nique he used for parts of at least some 
of his other highly detailed architec¬ 
tural prints and paintings. 2 The absence 
of perspective guidelines in the under¬ 
drawing further supports the idea that 
the drawing was transferred. Such 
guidelines, which may have been used 
in the original drawing to accurately 
depict the recession of buildings, would 
not need to be transferred. This contrasts 

with the technique of Emanuel de 
Witte, who drew perspective guidelines 
as part of his underdrawing directly 
on the ground of his paintings (see cat. 
nos. 35,36). 

After transferring the drawing to the 
prepared panel, Van der Heyden added 
details freehand that develop the 
drawing and make his work more spon¬ 
taneous and lively. 3 The looping, 
swirling, hatched lines that are found 
in the foliage of the trees to the right 
appear to have been done with pen and 
a liquid medium containing carbon- 
black pigment (fig. TR14.2). In IRR the 
lines appear solidly black and uniform 
in width, changing only when the 
direction of the pen's nib was angled. 
The fact that there are no underdrawn 
architectural lines beneath the freehand 
foliage of the trees further supports the 
idea that the buildings were transferred 
and the foliage added later to create 


Van der Heyden, The Herengracht, Amsterdam, Viewed from theLeliegracht 

Fig. TR14.3 Digital micrograph (50X magnification) 
of the upper sky showing the blue-smalt-containing 
surface paint applied over the light gray layer 

transitions between sections of the 
painting. 4 The numerous lines in the 
tree trunks to the right may also be 
freehand additions to transferred lines 
made by the artist. These lines are either 
thicker and darker or thinner and 
lighter in the infrared reflectogram, and 
this suggests they were created using 
different techniques. 

The IRR also suggests that Van der 
Heyden used brushed washes in areas of 
the composition, such as the sky and 
buildings, to denote shadows and 
clouds. These areas do not always corre¬ 
spond with paints on the surface; they 
are detectable only because of the 
carbon-black pigment in the wash. It is 
not known if these washes are a late part 
of the underdrawing or if they belong 
to the painting stage. 5 

Paints range from thick and pasty 
light colors to thin glazes applied in 
a number of ways. The ground is 
left exposed in many areas. Thin paints 
of the roofs of the buildings and many 
other areas, such as the water, have 
unblended, narrow strokes of paint 
applied in a free, open manner, less 
precise than the overall appearance of 
the painting. 

The sky was laid in with a cool, very 
light gray paint layer. Bright smalt 
mixed with white was applied over the 
gray layer. The thickness of the smalt 
layer varies; where it is thin, the 
underlayer shows and imparts a sense 
of the sky's atmosphere (fig. TR14.3). 

Van der Heyden left reserves in the sky 
and clouds for the buildings and trees. 
Even the larger branches jutting into 
the sky have reserves; however, many of 
the branches, especially those at the 
top of the picture, were painted over the 

blue sky. The light pink behind the trees 
on the right side of the picture is the 
reserve for architecture that, except for 
the faint finial and tops of buildings at 
the far right, was only marginally 
developed. There is an unpainted strip 
at the juncture of the architecture and 
the sky that appears to be the pink 
ground; this type of division of forms 
exists throughout the painting. The 
architecture and the canal in the lower 
part of the painting were painted 
directly on the ground, which shows in 
the open brushwork. 

The artist apparently applied the paint 
for the foliage with lichen or sponges to 
gain the desired texture and form of the 


Van der Heyden, The Herengracht, Amsterdam, Viewed from theLeliegracht 

Fig. TR14.4 Detail of sunlit leaves at right center 
were probably applied by daubing on paint with 
lichen or a sponge and possibly also with a brush. 

leaves (fig. TR14.4). The textured paint 
ranging in color from light blue 
to gray-blue may have been glazed to 
produce the appropriate color, but the 
pigments may have faded. Thin green 
and brown paint applied with a brush 
established the design before the 
textured foliage was applied. The foli¬ 
age paint contains at least the pigments 
lead-tin yellow, ochers and green earth, 
and copper-based pigments. 

The mortar lines were applied over the 
already painted local color for the brick 
walls, but some paint was also added 
over the mortar for shadows (fig. TR14.5). 
The light-colored mortar lines usually 
sit proud on the surface. The dark colors 
are thinner but have thick dots. Arie 
Wallert has described Van der Heydehs 
use of a counterproof technique 
to transfer the mortar patterns to his 
paintings. By pressing a fresh impres¬ 
sion of an etching of the brick pattern, 
ink side down, against the painting, 
the artist transferred the ink from the 
wet paper to the desired areas of the 
painting. 6 

The condition of the painting appears 
good. The wood grain, which had 
become more apparent in the sky, has 
been toned. Some areas of shadow in 
the foreground and in the trees appear 
a little thinned from cleaning. The 
painting was cleaned in 1974 at LACMA 
of a varnish that appears very discolored 
in documentary photographs. The 
painting presently has a clear varnish, 
probably an acrylic, which saturates 
fairly well. However, ultraviolet light 
shows remnants of a very fluorescent 
varnish (green in appearance) that 
was unevenly cleaned at some time in 
the past. This varnish is probably earlier 
than the varnish cleaned by the museum 
in 1974- 


Van der Heyden, The Herengracht, Amsterdam, Viewed from theLeliegracht 

Fig. TR14.5 Digital micrograph (25X magnification) 
of the bricks of the canal wall and light and dark 


1 The infrared reflectogram was taken with the 
i6oonm interference bandpass filter, which gave 
better penetration of the upper paint layers, 
sharpened the image, and provided more contrast 
between the carbon-black underdrawing 
materials and the calcium-carbonate ground. 

2 Wallert 2006-7, pp- 92-96. 

3 Wallert 2006-7, p- 96, has found that Van der 
Heyden reinforced more significant transferred 
architectural lines with graphite and a straight¬ 
edge. This would make some lines appear darker 

4 If an artist were drawing directly on the panel, 
he would probably first draw the entire building 
to ensure accuracy and then draw or paint foliage 
over it. Van der Heyden was known to have 
combined different groups of buildings trans¬ 
ferred from his drawings, occasionally reversing 
them. Trees and foliage drawn freehand aided the 
smooth transitions (in terms of perspective) 
from one transferred group of buildings to another. 
See Wallert 2006-7, P- 95 - 

5 Wallert 2006-7, P- 95 > mentions that Van der 
Heyden used a paint of carbon black and 

lead white to lay in gray areas of shadow after the 

6 Wallert 2006-7, PP- 98-100. 


Van der Heyden, The Herengracht, Amsterdam, Viewed from theLeliegracht 


Meindert Hobbema 


Landscape with Anglers 

and a Distant Town , ca. 1664-65 

Oil on wood, 9% x 12^ in. (23.8 x 31.8 cm) 

Signed lower left: m. hobbema 

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter 



Landscape with a Footbridge, ca. 1664-65 
Oil on wood, 9% x 12J 4 in. (23.8 x 31.8 cm) 

Signed right, on bridge: m. hobbema 

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter 






M eindert Hobbema's two landscapes entered the 
Carter collection separately but shared the same 
provenance between 1817 and 1962. Although 
collectors and dealers in the eighteenth and early nine¬ 
teenth century often paired paintings as companion pieces, 
the similar, unusually small dimensions of these paintings 
and their complementary idyllic compositions suggest that 
Hobbema indeed painted them to hang together. When 
placed side by side, with Landscape with Anglers and a Distant 
Town to the left of Landscape with a Footbridge , 1 the open areas 
of each landscape align, and the general compositional 
structures complement each other. 

In Landscape with Anglers and a Distant Town, a rutted 
road invites the viewer to enter the picture on the left 
and to continue, guided by the reflections of the sky on the 
water, along the edge of the still, swampy water that pools 
around the grove of trees where two anglers have cast their 
lines. In Landscape with a Footbridge, bright light draws 
attention to the distant left and visually leads the viewer 
along the edge of a swampy area that appears to have 
once functioned as the road but is now washed out. Two 
people in conversation mark the point where the road 
takes a detour to the right between a half-timbered house 
and a stand of trees and continues forward to where a man 
with a pack and walking stick approaches the bridge. Another 
man and his dog traverse the bridge in the foreground. 

The subjects of the two Carter paintings are typical of 
Hobbema, who almost exclusively represented idyllic scenes 
of the light-filled countryside in the vicinity of villages. 
When present, figures are of only minor importance, contri¬ 
buting, as here, to the quiet, optimistic mood of a peaceful 
landscape, where people relax, chat with their neighbors, or 
quietly fish—always personal pleasures rather than 
commercial ventures. Although Wilhelm von Bode praised 
the companion pieces for their fresh treatment and rich 
color and remarked that they “give the impression of having 
been painted directly from nature,” the landscape scenes, 
which follow a relatively standard format, were undoubtedly 
fanciful and produced in Hobbema's studio in Amsterdam. 2 
He probably based specific motifs on drawings he made 
from life, but the similarity of other motifs to those in works 
by Jacob van Ruisdael (1628/29-1682), who was also working 
in Amsterdam at that time, suggests that Hobbema had 
access to his paintings. 

Hobbema's sunlit road and a river encircling a group 
of prominent trees, as well as the articulation of swampy 
areas in which trees are reflected, are devices often employed 
by Van Ruisdael. In paintings of the 1650S-60S such as 
the Carter's The Great Oak, dated 1652 (see cat. no. 25), and 
the Norton Simon Museum's Wooded Landscape with a Pool and 
Figures (inv. no. M.1969.33.P), of about 1660, Van Ruisdael 
used a broad rutted road, often passing through water, 
to draw the viewer visually into the scene and connect to the 
sunlit distance. Hobbema's depiction of trees reflected 
in swampy water was undoubtedly shared by the example 
of Van Ruisdael, who also took up the motif in the 1660s 
in such works as Oaks at a Lake with Water Lilies, 1665-70 
(Gemaldegalerie, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, inv. no. 885G). 3 

While similarities exist between Hobbema and Van 
Ruisdael, Hobbema's treatment of color and especially light 
distinguishes his paintings from those of the older master. 
Whereas Van Ruisdael's light and shade create dramatic, 
often moody landscapes in which land and sky combine to 
create a unified composition, Hobbema's compositions 
are lighter and more open. In his work, light is dispersed 
throughout the landscapes, drawing attention from place to 
place in a decorative rather than unifying manner. Hobbema's 
foliage and tree branches are also more delicate than Van 
Ruisdael's and allow light to filter through, thus giving the 
leaves a lacy effect. Detached areas of light gray and pastel 
blues and greens that suggest the effect of the sun caught on 
the surfaces of trees and buildings add to the overall 
decorative quality characteristic of Hobbema's paintings. 

Although in 1660 Van Ruisdael stated that Hobbema 
had been his student and worked with him for some years, 
his strong influence on the younger artist is only evi¬ 
dent from about 1662. Comparison of the Carters' two small 
paintings to larger compositions by Hobbema, such as 
A View on a High Road, dated 1665 (National Gallery of Art, 
Washington, DC, inv. no. 1937.1.62), suggests that they date 
from about 1664-65. This proposed dating is further 
supported by the form of the signature that appears on each 
of the paintings: m. Hobbema. According to Wolfgang 
Stechow, the artist used this form of his signature between 
1661 and 1667. 4 


Hobbema, Landscape with Anglers and a Distant Town, Landscape with a Footbridge 



Fig. TRi5,i6.i Infrared reflectogram of Landscape 
with Anglers and a Distant Town 

Fig. TRi5,i6.2 Infrared reflectogram of Landscape 
with a Footbridge 

Fig. TR1546.3 Digital micrograph (175X 
magnification) of a tree limb from Landscape with a 

Each panel is about 14 inch thick and 
cradled. No bevels are present. Neither 
panel's right side is perfectly square. 
Also on both panels, the top and bottom 
stationary members of the cradle have 
a lip that adds approximately Vz inch to 
the height. The panels are planar. 

The panels have double grounds that 
consist of a thick, cream-colored ground 
applied directly to the wood and 
a thin red-pink ground on top. Infrared 
reflectography (IRR) did not reveal 
any underdrawings (figs. TRis,i6.i, 
TRi5,i6.2), 1 although it revealed that 
both landscapes were laid in with 
brushed lines of dark brown paint con¬ 
taining carbon black. Some of these 
lines are underneath upper paint layers, 

while others are fully visible on the paint 
surface. As such, it is difficult to say 
with certainty that these lines are under¬ 
drawn. As other Dutch landscape 
painters from this period did, Hobbema 
may have incorporated underdrawing 
and integrated it with the final painting 

Nonetheless, this thin, translucent dark 
color is visible beneath the gray church 
steeple in Landscape with a Footbridge. 
Paints range from transparent darks, 
which are thickly layered in some areas 
to give some relief to the surface, to 
pasty, opaque whites and grays, which 
in some areas are pulled to such 
thinness over the red ground that the 
ground color is visible. In Landscape with 
a Footbridge some pentimenti were found 
in IRR indicating an extra tree and 
some planks in the bridge that were not 
visible on the surface of the painting. 

The clouds in both paintings were 
painted with stiff brushes that left 
marks of the bristles. The upper parts of 
the trees were painted over the clouds, 
which are quite dense in the center. The 
figures were painted over the painted 

In both paintings the pigment smalt 
was found in the paint of the sky mixed 
with lead white. Tiny craters in the 
paint of the sky may be due to the 
formation of lead soaps. The paint of 
the foliage incorporates copper- and 
iron-based pigments, such as green 
earth and lead-tin yellow. A daubing 
technique may also have been used 
in the initial application of the foliage, 
which was then glazed with copper 
resinate or yellow lake. On the surface 


Hobbema, Landscape with Anglers and a Distant Town, Landscape with a Footbridge 

small brushes described the leaves. The 
limbs of the trees were painted in part 
with a deep violet paint that contains 
carbon black mixed with a purple lake, 
as seen in Landscape with a Footbridge 
(fig. TR15,16.3). 

The signature m hobbema on Landscape 
with Anglers and a Distant Town is painted 
with a very dark reddish to black paint. 
The letters of the signature are a little 
abraded, particularly after the ho. 

There could be slight reinforcement, 
but cracks are visible in the “reinforce¬ 
ment,” suggesting it may actually 
be original. 

The signature m hobbema in lowercase 
script on Landscape with a Footbridge 
is painted with lemon-yellow-colored 
paint mixed with white, and it is in 
good condition. 

The paintings are in good condition. 
However, in both works toning in the 
sky subdues the wood grain, which 
had become more apparent with time, 
and also covers the lead soap craters. 
Additionally, there is some thinning of 
surface paints. Ultraviolet light shows 
a very fluorescent greenish-yellow 
varnish, which could be a natural resin. 

To determine whether Hobbema had 
painted the two panels as one, the 
IR reflectograms were aligned end to 
end in both orientations to see if there 
were any marks, damages, or under¬ 
drawing that could link the panels; 
none was found. 


1 Interference bandpass filters (i2oonm, i4oonm, 
i6oonm) were used during the IRR examination. 
No filters were used during the capturing of the 
IRR. This was to ensure that underdrawing 
materials, such as iron-gall ink (which disappears 
at i6oonm), would not be blocked by a filter. 


Hobbema, Landscape with Anglers and a Distant Town, Landscape with a Footbridge 

Jan van Huysum 


Bouquet of Flowers in an Urn , 1724 

Oil on mahogany, 31 Vz x 23 Vz in. 

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter 



(80 x 59.7 cm) 


Signed and dated lower right, on edge of ledge: 


Jan Van Huysum / fecit 1724 



D ated 1724, approximately one hundred years 

after Ambrosius Bosschaerts Bouquet of Flowers on 
a Ledge (cat. no. 4) Jan van Huysuiris Bouquet of 
Flowers in an Urn represents a distinctly different aesthetic in 
terms of scale, composition, coloration, and selection of 
flowers. Like Bosschaert, Van Huysum placed his still life on 
a ledge set in front of a landscape. The effect, however, is 
entirely different. Whereas Bosschaert described each blos¬ 
som according to its individual form and color, setting 
the symmetrical bouquet against an equally vibrant sky and 
landscape. Van Huysum sought to integrate his composi¬ 
tion both coloristically and spatially. Harmonious color 
combinations imbue his composition with a decorative 
quality that reflects the taste of the early eighteenth century. 

Van Huysuiris asymmetrical bouquet is a virtual 
explosion of flowers. Set in an Italian terracotta garden urn 
decorated with putti in bas-relief, similar to those painted 
by his contemporary Jacob de Wit (1695-1754), and placed 
on a pink marble parapet against a misty park landscape, 
the flowers twist and turn, overlapping each other as they 
fight for space and light. 1 At the summit of the bouquet that 
mounts diagonally toward the upper right are a red crown 
imperial and the smaller red turban-cap lily, exotic flowers 
introduced to the Netherlands from Asia in the seventeenth 
century. Next to them are common apple blossoms. A wilt¬ 
ing white tulip striped with purple is suspended by its 
broken stem over the edge of the urn and projects forward 
at the lower end of the bouquet. Rather than tulips, so 
prized in the previous century. Van Huysuiris selection of 
hyacinths, double poppy anemones, peonies, and roses 
reflects the popular taste of the early eighteenth century for 
more decorative flowers. Voluptuous blossoms past their 
prime cascade over the urn. A large red double peony lies 
face down on the marble parapet, followed by a white 
anemone with red stripes suspended by a long stem that 
forms a graceful arabesque. At the core of the bouquet are 
more peonies and at the right, a yellow rose that became 
known as a “Van Huysum rose” (fig. 17.1). Morning glories, 
golden flax, and honeysuckle, suspended on delicate stems, 
animate the composition and contribute to the lively 
decorative effect. 

Van Huysum began his still lifes by working out the 
compositions in drawings. Executed in watercolor and 
corrected with charcoal or chalk, the drawings capture the 
general massing and rhythms of the composition while 
only summarily suggesting individual flowers. To develop 
the complicated bouquet with its unusual, often contorted, 
views of different flowers, he may have employed a tech¬ 
nique described by his contemporary Gerard de Lairesse 
(1640-1711) in the conclusion to his chapter “Of Flowers” in 
hi s Art of Fainting: 

Take a Parcel of Flowers of all Sorts, made of Paper or 
Silk, and with wired 

Stalks, as they are sold by the Tire-women. Now, if you 
would make a Group, 

Festoon, or Basket of Flowers, or any such Thing, 

order and shift those Flowers 

by and upon one another, as they suit best; and thus 

you may exercise your self in 

Winter time, when you cannot have the Life; because 

those Flowers never wither. 2 

Infrared reflectography (IRR) of the Carter painting 
indicates that Van Huysum started by marking the center 
of the prepared panel with vertical and horizontal lines and 
then establishing the lines of the parapet (see Technical 
Report). Using a brush, he laid out the composition, which 
he later reworked in places with chalk. The sketch on the 
panel appears to be an elaboration of a closely related 
compositional drawing on paper (fig. 17.2). Executed in black 
chalk and watercolor, the drawing indicates the general 
organization of the still life with the crown imperial at the 
upper right, the sweeping stem of the broken tulip, and the 
peony resting on the parapet. Van Huysum used a second, 
smaller drawing, executed in pen and brown ink with wash, 
to work out areas of light and shadow (Kupferstichkabinett, 
Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, inv. no. KdZ 2816). 

After establishing his composition. Van Huysum 
must have sought models of the individual flowers. The 
repetition of certain flowers, sometimes reversed, suggests 
that he maintained a collection of drawings and paintings 


Van Huysum, Bouquet of Flowers in an Urn 

for reference in developing his painted bouquets, although 
no drawings of individual flowers by him are known. 

He probably also painted directly from actual flowers and 
drawings by other artists. Writing in 1757, Antoine-Joseph 
Dezailler d'Argenville (1680-1765) noted that in spring 
and summer Van Huysum drew and painted flowers from 
his own garden as well as those sent to him by flower growers 
in Haarlem and Amsterdam. 3 Although it may reflect 
a conceit. Van Huysum wrote to Christian Ludwig (1683- 
1756), who with his son Friedrich had begun to collect Dutch 
paintings at Mecklenburg-Schwerin, that he had not fin¬ 
ished a flower piece the previous year because he could not 
obtain a yellow rose. Another letter refers to his practice 
of working up individual objects one by one. Referring to 
a painting he had almost finished, he wrote, “and on 
the fruit piece, the grapes, figs and pomegranate have to 
be painted in.” 4 

The light yellowish-green, park-like background of 
Bouquet of Flowers in an Urn, which appears to be a contin¬ 
uation of the same space, is characteristic of Van Huysum's 
mature floral still lifes produced after 1720. His earlier 
compositions are set against the traditional, undefined, 
dark background used by Jan Davidsz. de Heem (1606-1684) 
and others. It was reportedly Lambert ten Kate (1674-1731), 
the Amsterdam linguist and connoisseur, who urged Van 
Huysum to abandon the dark backgrounds and use lighter 
colors. 5 These light landscape backgrounds, which contrib¬ 
ute to a more delicate and ultimately more decorative 
image, were considered a major innovation. According to 
Van Huysum's first biographer, Johan van Gool: 

[H]e placed his charming flowers not only against dark 
grounds, in elegant vases with artful bas-reliefs, in the 
known manner of De Heem and Mignon.... He also 
set them off against light grounds, even against clear 
skies and beautiful landscapes, an artistic trick, 
unknown for his time, never seen before, and it was 
immediately embraced with cheer and approved by 
the most excellent amateurs. 6 

In Bouquet of Flowers in an Urn, the light background, 
which is typically darker on the left side, contributes to the 
overall harmony of colors and decorative quality of the 
composition. Transitions between similar colors suggest 
movement. Individual flowers cast shadows within the 

bouquet, while light seems to permeate it, illuminating 
flowers such as the overblown tulip hidden behind the large 
white peony in the center. Applying paint wet-on-wet in 
thin and not completely opaque layers, he defined the 
different textures of the flowers—the smooth, silky texture 
of the tulip built up with thicker paint differs from the 
thin, delicate petals of the crown imperial and the dense 
quality of the hyacinth and the smooth surface of the urn 
and stone parapet (see Technical Report). Van Huysum 
reserved his thickest paint for the foremost flowers that 
appear in the front of the bouquet, defining flowers in 
the background on the fringes, such as the gold narcissus 
on the left and the red poppy anemone on the right, with 
thinner paint so that they appear to recede. In 1678 Samuel 
van Hoogstraten had described this common painter's trick: 

tangibility [kenlijkheyt] alone makes the objects appear 
nearby, and conversely that smoothness [egaelheyt] makes 
them recede, and I therefore desire that that which 
is to appear on the foreground be painted roughly and 
briskly, and that which is to recede be painted more 
neatly and purely the further away it lies. 7 

Van Huysum's immense popularity during his lifetime 
and later was due to an appreciation of his harmonious 
compositions that demonstrate his keen powers of observa¬ 
tion and incredible skill in representing the textures of 
flowers, leaves, and fruit at every stage of growth, as well as 
the minute insects and dewdrops that appear naturalisti- 
cally on the petals and leaves. His still lifes with their park 
landscapes, bright hues, and classicizing motifs decorating 
terracotta vases particularly suited the contemporary French 
style, which swept through Europe during the late seven¬ 
teenth and early eighteenth centuries. Contemporary poets 
extolled Van Huysum's power to re-create nature in paint: 8 

The harsh North frost may boast of its great powers. 
Oppressing my garden and menacing it each year: 
Now I ne'er fear the cold will kill my flowers. 

Spoke Flora, when first Van HUYSUM's art she saw. 
Capturing Nature's acme in earthly stars: 

O Lights of Heaven! You grace the vault of night. 
While these do shine most beauteously by day: 

Thus does his brush create a deathless Spring. 

This Phoenix, who enchants the world with paint. 
Deserves a wreath of letters that ne'er can fade. 9 


Van Huysum, Bouquet of Flowers in an Urn 

Fig. 17.1 

Fig. 17.2 

Fig. 17.1 Detail of cat. no. 17 

Fig. 17.2 Jan van Huysum, Keizerskroon, pioen en andere 
bloemen in een metputti versierde vaas (Crown Imperial, 
Peony, and Other Flowers in a Vase Decorated with Putti), 
n.d. Black chalk and watercolor on paper, 15% x 12 in. 
(39.8 x 30.5 cm). Private collection 


Van Huysum, Bouquet of Flowers in an Urn 

The earliest reference to Bouquet of Flowers in an Urn is 
in the catalogue of the 1749 joint sale of the collections of 
Johan Diederik Pompe van Meerdervoort (1697-1749) and 
Van Huysum. The painting sold for the exceptionally high 
sum of 1,245 florins. 10 It is unclear to whom it actually 
belonged, since the most expensive paintings were gener¬ 
ally placed at the beginning of sales, regardless of the sellers. 
The success of the painting, however, suggests that it 
had not remained in Van Huysuiris possession for twenty- 
five years as a model for other paintings but belonged 
to the collection of Pompe van Meerdervoort. The painting 
would have clearly suited the taste of the wealthy collector, 
who owned an elegant country house in Zwijndrecht across 
the River Maas from Dordrecht. 11 A Family Portrait of Johan 
Diederik Pompe van Meerdervoort with His Wife, Johanna Alida, 
and Their Eldest Daughter, Maria Christina , painted by Nicolaes 
Verkolje (1673-1746) in 1724 (fig. 17.3) represents the 
collector and his family in the park-like setting of his estate, 
Huis te Meerdervoort. Wearing the latest French clothing 
and coif and holding a rifle—a reference to his aristocra¬ 
tic stature—Pompe van Meerdervoort casually leans against 
a parapet supporting a garden urn similar to that in Van 
Huysum's painting. 

The buyer of Bouquet of Flowers in an Urn at the 1749 
sale is unknown, but by 1766 it was one of six paintings by 
Van Huysum owned by the famous collector and patron 
Gerrit Braamcamp (1699-1771), who had probably purchased 
at least some other paintings directly from the artist. 12 
The Carter painting was one of three pictures of fruits and 
flowers painted on panels of identical measurements. 131 
The paintings hung in the 'Targe salon” (groote saal) of 
Braamcamp's home at Herengracht 462, Amsterdam. Three 
steps led to the salon built in 1760 at the corner of the 
garden. Decorated with wainscoting painted the same green 
color used for the other large ground-floor rooms, the salon 
had an English mantelpiece with marble tiles, carved mirror 
frame, and ornaments, as well as stuccoed pedestals for 
classical sculpture. The pleasant salon was spacious and light. 
Three windows looked out on the garden, with flowers, 
grass lawns, and sculptures. 14 

It may have been between the windows looking out 
to the garden that Braamcamp displayed Bouquet of Flowers 
in an Urn and the other still life with a park background. 

In 1712 Gerard de Lairesse had stressed the importance of 
hanging paintings so that still lifes agreed with the lighting 
within the room and landscapes appeared like naturalistic 
views through a window. 15 Although Van Huysum had 
not yet introduced the garden background to his flower still 
lifes when De Lairesse wrote his influential book, one can 
imagine that the same principles would have applied to the 
placement of Bouquet of Flowers in an Urn —that the paint¬ 
ing would appear to be a natural view through the window 
to the actual garden. 

The three Van Huysum still lifes in Braamcamp's 
collection were famous. At Braamcamp's sale in 1771, Bouquet 
of Flowers in an Urn (lot 90) sold for the remarkable price of 
3,800 florins. The buyer was Jan Gildemeester Jansz. (1744- 
1799 )? a wealthy Dutch merchant and collector. Gildemeester, 
who had begun to collect at an early age, assembled an 
important art collection that he displayed after 1792 in his 
elegant home at Herengracht 475, Amsterdam. A painting 
by Adriaan de Lelie (1755-1820) dated 1794-95, in the 
Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam (inv. no. SK-A-4100), records the 
appearance of Gildemeester's art gallery, which was popular 
among contemporary collectors and art lovers. Sold in 1800, 
following Gildemeestefs death the previous year, the 
painting continued to pass through the most illustrious 
collections in the Netherlands, including that of Pieter 
Smeth van Alphen (1753-1809) and Lucretia Johanna van 
Winter (1785-1845). Through her marriage to Hendrick Six 
van Hillegom (1790-1847) in 1822, the painting entered 
the famous Six collection, from which it was sold at auction 
in 1928. 16 In 1941 the Nazis confiscated Bouquet of Flowers in 
an Urn from Arthur Hartog, a wealthy Dutch businessman 
of Jewish descent who had been taken prisoner by the 
Japanese on 7 December while on a business trip to Indonesia. 
The painting was destined for the Fiihrer Museum, which 
was to be built in Linz, Hitler's birthplace. Restituted to 
the Netherlands in 1946, it was returned in 1948 to Hartog 
in London. 17 


Van Huysum, Bouquet of Flowers in an Urn 


Fig. 17.3 Nicolaes Verkolje (1673-1746), A Family 
Portrait ofjohan Diederik Pompe van Meerdervoort 
with His Wife, Johanna Alida, and Their Eldest Daughter, 
Maria Christina, 1724. Oil on panel, 30% x 24 in. 
(77.9 x 60.9 cm). Dordrechts Museum, Dordrecht, 
donated by the Volunteers of the Dordrechts 
Museum 2007 (inv. no. DM/007/883) 


Van Huysum, Bouquet of Flowers in an Urn 



Fig. TR17.1 Infrared reflectogram 

Fig. TR17.2 Tiny horizontal and vertical hatches 
were used as guides for the construction lines. 
Hatches, marked in blue, appear darker in IRR. 

The panel is a single board of mahogany 
about Va inch thick and cradled. There 
are no bevels. Slight waves on the 
surface were probably caused by the 
cradle. The surface of the painting 
shows the texture of the wood, although 
the painting has a thick, cream-colored 
ground. It could not be determined 
at this time if there was more than one 
ground or an imprimatura. X-ray fluo¬ 
rescence spectrometry (XRF) suggests 
that ochers and lead-tin yellow in addi¬ 
tion to whites were used in the ground. 

The ground of the painting is so highly 
reflective with infrared reflectography 
(IRR), 1 and the pigments used for the 
flowers so transparent, that it was 
difficult to obtain sufficient contrast to 
see the underdrawing. The i6oonm 
interference bandpass filter, however, 

helped to detect it. Two techniques 
seem to have been used to execute the 
underdrawing: (1) a sharp implement 
such as graphite pencil or metalpoint; 2 
and (2) a brush with a dilute liquid 
medium containing carbon-black 
pigments (fig. TR17.1). 

Van Huysum used pencil or metalpoint 
for the construction or placement 
lines of the bouquet, urn, and ledge. 3 
He also used this technique in parts of 
the bouquet itself, for instance in the 
face of the putto on the right side of 
the urn. Some of the lines used to define 
the edges of the ledge have tiny dark 
“hatches,” where he first indicated the 
line was to go; he then used a straight¬ 
edge to connect these hatches (fig. 
TR17.2). One of the horizontal lines 
skips where the straightedge slipped 
while the artist was drawing the 
line. The line continues, slightly higher 
or lower. 

Extensive underdrawing done with 
a brush and a dilute liquid containing 
carbon-black pigment was found 
beneath and throughout the brightly 
colored flowers. IRR revealed that many 
of the flowers have been changed, 
shifted, even abandoned between the 
underdrawing and the final painted 
stage. These earlier flowers, with thick, 
almost crudely brushed outlines, have 
sharper, more refined, and often 
different flowers painted over them. 

Van Huysum may have relied on a 
drawing or composed directly on the 
panel; what is clear is that he used the 
brushed underdrawing as a loose guide, 
modifying it as he developed the 
painting on top. He is known to have 


Van Huysum, Bouquet of Flowers in an Urn 

Fig. TR17.3 Digital micrograph (50X magnification) 
of petals of auriculas in shadow, showing layers of 
glazes and descriptive brushwork 

Fig. TR17.4 Digital micrograph (50X magnification) 
of petal of auricula in shadow, showing the scoring 

executed monochromatic sketches on 
paper, and it seems likely that the 
underdrawing found in this painting 
may relate to these. It is not known 
what the medium for this underdraw¬ 
ing is; it may be water-based, such as ink 
or watercolor, or it could be a diluted 
oil paint. 

The IRR clearly showed that Van 
Huysum left areas of reserve for the 
flowers. 4 These reserves appear through¬ 
out the composition where the green 
background 5 has been pulled in around 
the flowers in the underdrawing. 
Because many of the paints the artist 
used for the flowers are fairly transpar¬ 
ent in IRR (for example, lead white, 
red and yellow lakes, and Prussian 
blue 6 ), the bright white of the calcium- 
carbonate ground shows through, 
making halos out of the flower-blossom 
reserves. Some flowers, particularly 
the tiny ones at the outer edge of the 

bouquet, have no areas of reserve, 
indicating that they were painted later— 
directly over the background. 

Several layers of paint impart the per¬ 
ception of the color and texture of the 
image. Paints range from pasty and 
impastoed to thin scumbles and glazes 
applied wet-into-wet and wet-over-dry. 
Van Huysum painted the bouquet, the 
urn, and ledge directly on the ground. 
He painted the green layer for the 
background around the basic design of 
the flowers and urn, which he already 
may have begun to paint. As he built up 
the background with opaque and thin, 
transparent colors, he adjusted it 
around the flowers and over the green 
background to obtain the shapes he 
desired. The morning glory at lower 
center was painted over the set paint of 

the urn, and the spray of blue auriculas 
on the marble ledge was partially 
painted over a reserve, but part of it was 
painted over the marble ledge. 

X-ray fluorescence spectrometry (XRF) 
found that the green background paints 
contain ochers, probably green earth, 
lead white, but no pigments containing 
copper. The blue auricula blossoms on 
the ledge have a foundation layer of 
light blue paint, colored by ultramarine 
blue that the artist worked up with 
deep blue glazes and thin glazes of red 
lake and of a deeper blue (possibly 
indigo) (fig. TR17.3). The shadow below 
the blue auricula blossoms on the table 
is scored with fine parallel lines in two 
directions. The thin, translucent gray 
paint applied over the area, which is 
darker in the grooves and lighter and 
thinner over the flat interstices between 
them, enlivens the shadows (fig. 

TR17.4). The same technique is found in 
a number of areas of the painting. 


Van Huysum, Bouquet of Flowers in an Urn 

TR17.5 Detail of the “Van Huysum rose” showing 
the red underlayer and the light yellow upper layer 
containing Naples yellow 

The little, stippled red-and-white 
auriculas in the center of the painting 
were laid in directly on the ground 
with almost pure lead-white paint, with 
tiny dashes and dots added along the 
edges. The latter sit well above the 
surface; the white must have been very 
viscous to have spread so little when 
applied. A translucent blue paint was 
used for the cool shadows. 

The “Van Huysum rose” was laid in 
with a light red layer, containing the 
pigments vermilion-cinnabar and lead 
white. The artist then applied paint 
containing Naples yellow, a new pigment 
at the time (fig. TR17.5). The upper 
paint layers of the rose have suffered 
from flaking; this deterioration may be 
due to the saponification of lead and 
the lack of adhesion between the red 
underlayer and the layers above it. 

To paint the large, frilly, white peony, 
the artist began with thin washes of 
various colors brushed on the ground; 
he then developed the forms with thick 
white-, cream-, and yellow-colored 
paints, adjusting the petals over 
surrounding flowers (fig. TR17.6). XRF 
identified the pigments Naples yellow 
and vermilion at the center of the 
flower. The salmon-colored peony 
behind the striped tulip appears to have 
a thin application of white paint that 
was glazed with a violet-red lake. 

The small leaves hanging over the ledge 
at the lower center were laid in first 
with a blue paint layer applied directly 
on the ground. The dark blue leaf hang¬ 
ing straight down consists of a blue 
paint layer containing the pigments 
Prussian blue, ochers, green earth, lead 
white, and some azurite. The leaf must 
have been originally green; it is likely 
that a light-sensitive yellow has faded or 
copper resinate has been abraded. The 

brighter green leaves contain the 
pigments lead white, green earth (or 
ocher), and Naples yellow. The yel¬ 
low-brown of some leaves contains the 
green pigment copper resinate, which 
has discolored, and lead white, ochers, 
and green earth. 

The X-radiograph does not show any 
major changes. The central flowers are 
clearly identifiable in the X-radiograph, 
but the perimeter of the painting 
appears blurry. The signature and date, 
which are in good condition, were 
painted with dark, translucent red- 
brown paint. A thin line of red-brown 


Van Huysum, Bouquet of Flowers in an Urn 

TR17.6 Detail of the white peony showing the thick 
white-, cream-, and yellow-colored paints 

paint of a lighter shade was applied over 
the darker paint. The letters and 
numbers were outlined on the right 
side with light red-brown paint. 

The painting is in very good condition, 
although there is minor abrasion, 
probably from past cleaning. The only 
flaking is in the “Van Huysum rose” at 
right, which has some restoration. The 
varnish has a soft, even appearance. 

The painting was cleaned in 1974 at 
LACMA to remove a very glossy varnish. 
Minor restorations were also removed, 
and an acrylic varnish was applied. 


1 The high IR reflectivity of the grounds indicates 
the presence of calcium carbonate. 

2 The lines are fine and sharp and differ only 
slightly in width along their lengths—they also 
differ slightly from each other in terms of 
darkness. All of this suggests the use of a pencil or 
metalpoint with a variety of pressure accounting 
for the slight differences in darkness and width. 

A pen would give a more solidly dark line and an 
even line width, and black chalk or charcoal 
would give a more broken-up line, uneven in 

3 Similar construction lines are also found in the 
infrared reflectogram of Van Huysum’s Vase with 
Flowers in the collection of The J. Paul Getty 
Museum, Los Angeles, inv. no. 82.PB.70. Dik and 
Wallert 1998, pp. 391-94. 

4 Van Huysum was known to begin by painting his 
backgrounds in first; in one letter he describes 
how his painting was almost finished, but some 
fruits and flowers still needed to be painted. Dik 
and Wallert 1998, pp. 391-94. 

5 Carbon-black pigment in the green background 
paint appears dark in the IRR. 

6 Prussian blue is somewhat absorbing in regular 
IRbut transparent in the higher range used with 
IRR. The i6oonm bandpass filter was used in the 
capturing of this IR reflectogram. 


Van Huysum, Bouquet of Flowers in an Urn 

Willem Kalf 





still Life with a Porcelain Vase, Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter 

Silver-gilt Ewer, and Glasses , ca. 1643 M.2009.106.22 

Oil on canvas, 21% x 17% in. 

(55.6x44.1 cm) 


A silver-gilt ewer stands sentinel over a still life of 
luxury objects carefully arranged on a stone table 
partially covered with a dark green cloth. Light 
cast from the upper left skims across the top of the table, 
casting long shadows while selectively illuminating and 
defining the different textures and materials of objects set 
on it. Caught in the light, the brilliantly colored sliced 
orange, single drop of juice, and the rim and elaborate stem 
of the wineglass stand out against the dark background, 
which over time has absorbed many of the painting's 
details. The irregular surface of the Mannerist ewer sparkles 
in the light and serves as a foil for the smooth porcelain of 
the overturned blue-and-white Chinese bottle. Bathed 
in light, the porcelain vessel is reflected on the pewter plate 
on which it and a closed watch rest. In the shadowy back¬ 
ground to the left, the facets on the stem of an overturned 
glass flute and on a covered cut-glass bowl glisten in 
the light. Behind the ewer, olives glisten in the half light. 

Willem Kalf convincingly suggests that the still life 
modeled in light and shadow exists within the viewer's 
space by depicting the handle of the knife and the pewter 
plate as if they project over the edge of the table. A ribbon 
attached to the watch drapes over the edge of the plate; 
caught by the light, it animates the dark green, almost black, 
cloth and contributes to the perception of depth within 
the picture. 

Still Life with a Porcelain Vase, Silver-gilt Ewer, and Glasses 
is one of the first compositions in which Kalf painted a still 
life of a restricted number of luxury objects viewed from 
slightly below and selectively lit so that they appear to 
emerge from the surrounding darkness. His early production, 
which continued into the mid-i64os, had consisted almost 
exclusively of small-scale still lifes set within dark, cluttered 
barn interiors, often with one or two figures (Detroit 
Institute of Arts, inv. no. 69.358). Kalf's interest in light and 
reflections is already evident on the surfaces of the large 
copper basins and stalks of straw within the dark, textured 
interior of the barn. Nevertheless, the change in aesthetic 
as well as subject from these barn interiors to his still lifes of 
expensive objects ( pronk ) is striking. 

Compositionally, the Carter painting closely resem¬ 
bles Still Life with a Silver-gilt Jug, a Wan-Li Porcelain Plate with 
Candied Fruit, and a Pewter Plate with a Peeled Lemon (fig. 18.1), 1 
in which a large silver-gilt ewer dominates the triangular 
composition of costly objects set on the corner of a table. 
Significantly, both paintings include the unusual knife with 
a handle in the form of a horse's hoof, similar to that found 
on a silver spoon made in Amsterdam in 1650 (fig. 18.2). 2 
The distinctive motif, which appears on the handle of a uten¬ 
sil (probably a spoon) resting in the chased silver bowl in the 
left background of Still Life with a Silver-gilt Jug, is found in 
only one other painting by Kalf, 3 suggesting that these three 
paintings were completed about the same time. 

The composition and individual details of LACMA's 
painting and Still Life with a Silver-gilt Jug indicate Kalf's 
knowledge of still lifes painted by Jan Davidsz. de Heem 
(1606-1684) during the 1630s. 4 Like Kalf, De Heem composed 
his early still lifes with a limited number of objects seen 
from a low vantage point so that they appear to overlap in 
a compellingly three-dimensional arrangement. The 
composition of the Carter painting is particularly close to 
a still life by De Heem (fig. 18.3) 5 that features a triangular 
composition dominated by a tall pewter ewer. In Kalf's 
painting, the ornate, chased silver-gilt ewer occupies the 
place of De Heem's smooth pewter vessel, and the blue 
ribbon of the watch has replaced De Heem's cascading lemon 
peel. 6 Likewise, Kalf's overturned Chinese porcelain wine 
bottle assumes the position of the silver cup viewed from 
the bottom in De Heem's painting. Kalf repeats the circular 
form of the bottle's dark base in the geometric shapes of 
the closed watch, the wineglasses, and the orange. 

Despite their similarities, the isolated simplicity of the 
Carter still life, in which only the glass of wine and half 
orange indicate someone has been present, differs from Still 
Life with a Silver-gilt Jug in which Kalf emphasizes the human 
presence by including the Chinese porcelain bowl with 
candied fruit, the broken pastry, and the crumpled cloth 
as well as the wine and spiraling lemon peel. The Carter 
painting, furthermore, replaces the golden tones and sharp 
rendering of Still Life with a Silver-gilt Jug with a dark tonality 
and sfumato modeling of the objects that anticipate Kalf's 
later paintings. The compositional format and dark palette, 
as well as specific details, like the covered cut-glass bowl, 
plate of olives, and stone table, are particularly close to 
Kalf's earliest dated pronk still life painted in Paris, Still Life 
with Nautilus Shell, Plate of Olives, Tin Pilgrim Flask, and 
Glasses, dated 1643 (Musee de Tesse, Le Mans, France, inv. 
no. LM io.89). h 

The tall ewer that is similar to those in other paintings 
attributed to Kalf 8 was probably based on an actual object 
Kalf owned or to which he had direct access, rather than on 
a two-dimensional image, such as the black-and-white 
engraving by Cherubino Alberti (1553-1615) after Polidoro 
da Caravaggio (ca. 1499-ca. 1543) that served as Kalf's model 
for the elaborate gilt-silver ewer in Still Life with a Silver-gilt 
Jug . 9 The ewer in the Carter painting is similar to egg-shaped 
ewers that were produced in France and Germany during 
the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. It is 
unknown if Kalf modeled his ewer on a chased gilt-silver 
vessel or on a pewter example, like those produced by 
Francois Briot (ca. 1550-ca. 1612) and others. 10 Inspired by 
antique vessels, the Mannerist ewers are divided into three 
horizontal zones and decorated with reliefs representing 
allegorical figures. Like the vessel in the present work, 
a face or mask appears on the neck under the lip, and a herm 
stretches along the high-arching handle of the ewer. 


Kalf, Still Life with a Porcelain Vase, Silver-gilt Ewer, and Glasses 

Kalfs interest in pronk still lifes has traditionally 
been connected with his arrival in Paris, where he came into 
contact with the work of Flemish and French still-life paint¬ 
ers. The move was presumed to have occurred after 1638, 
the year he signed his earliest dated painting, a rustic kitchen 
still life (private collection. New York) that is closely related 
to contemporary interests in Rotterdam. 11 However, newly 
discovered documents indicate that between 1637 and 1639 
Kalf was in The Hague, where both his older brother Gerrit 
and his sister and their families were living. By 13 November 
1640, a document in The Hague notes that by then Kalf 
was “abroad” (uijtlandich). 12 It is unknown where he was 
between the time of his departure from The Hague, proba¬ 
bly in 1639, and his arrival in 1642 in Paris, where his 
presence is documented by the depiction of the towers of 
Notre Dame in the background of the painting Peasants 
Outside at a Well (private collection), dated in that year. 13 
Although undocumented, it is possible that Kalf spent time 
in Flanders, possibly Antwerp, on his way to Paris. 14 His 
contact with the city is suggested by the influence of De Heem, 
who had relocated to Antwerp by 1635, and the introduction 
of elaborate gilded objects, which often appear in contem¬ 
porary Flemish paintings such as those by Adriaen van 
Utrecht (1599-1652). It is further suggested by the discovery 
that Kalf painted his early barn interiors on panels produced 
in Antwerp. 

In 1988 Sam Segal reported that he had detected the 
remnants of a signature and date, W. Kalf 163-, on the Carter 
painting, which he dated 1639 and considered Kalfs earliest 
Paris still life. 15 Subsequent examinations of the painting 
have not, however, corroborated SegaFs discovery of a date 
or signature. 16 Nevertheless, the painting, which includes 
references to the Netherlands and Paris, may, in fact, be 
the first pronk still life Kalf painted in Paris, but dated closer 
to 1642-43 than 1639. The differences in tonality and the 
inclusion of objects found only in later paintings suggest 
that the Carter still life dates after Still Life with a Silver- 
gilt Jug, which is considered to have been painted before 
Kalfs arrival in Paris because of its references to De Heem 
and inclusion of objects not commonly found in Paris. 17 

Writing in 1712, Gerard de Lairesse admired Kalfs style 
but lamented that he did not attach meaning that would 
elevate his paintings: “[Kalf] could give us little Reason for 
what he did as others before or after him: He only depicted 
what occurred to him, a Porcelain Pot or Dish... without 

any thought of doing something of Importance which might 
bear some particular Meaning or be applicable to some¬ 
thing.” 18 Although De Lairesse, a history painter, was probably 
expressing the contemporary low regard for still life 
in deference to history painting rather than any specific 
opinion about Kalfs iconographic intentions, it is debatable 
whether Kalf and his contemporaries viewed his luxurious 
still lifes caressed by sensual light as carrying moral meaning. 

In the previous catalogue of the Carter collection, the 
authors associated the painting with Temperance, one of 
the cardinal virtues. The depiction of Temperantia on the 
silver-gilt ewer, the inverted wineglass in the background, 
and the pocket watch can be allusions to Temperance. 

A reference to Temperance or vanitas has also been applied 
to the painting in Rouen (see n. 8) in which the same ewer 
is overturned, and an open watch—a traditional reference 
to the passage of time associated with vanitas —rests on 
a pewter plate. In the Rouen painting, however, the detail of 
the medallion with the figure of Temperance is not empha¬ 
sized, so even there it remains a vague allusion. 

Rather than focus on a moral lesson, Kalfs sumptuous 
still lifes, which seduce the viewer with the brilliant colors 
emerging from the shadows—the translucent quality of the 
flesh of an orange, the soft skin of a peach, and the cool 
glisten of silver—may have been primarily appreciated as 
celebrations of the luxury that accompanies prosperity. 

For Kalf, his paintings were tours de force, demonstrating 
his high level of skill in representing the different textures 
and surfaces of objects. His contemporaries would have 
admired the selection of objects depicted in the Carter still 
life. The blue-and-white porcelain wine bottle decorated 
with narrative scenes around the bowl and tulip motifs 
at the neck is characteristic of transitional ware produced in 
China between 1620 and 1680. Known as a globular bottle, 
it was made according to specifications provided by 
the Dutch East India Company (Verenigde Oostindische 
Compagnie, VOC) for export to the Netherlands. 19 The wine¬ 
glasses fashioned locally a la fagon de Venise were a reference 
to the finer originals imported from Venice. Like the 
precious objects they depict, Kalf's sumptuous paintings 
were undoubtedly valued by collectors primarily for their 
refinement and technical skill—reflections of the owner's 
wealth and status. 


Kalf, Still Life with a Porcelain Vase, Silver-gilt Ewer, and Glasses 

Fig. 18.1 Willem Kalf, Still Life with a Silver-gilt Jug, 
a Wan-Li Porcelain Plate with Candied Fruit, and a Pewter 
Plate with a Peeled Lemon, n.d. Oil on canvas, 

3014 x 23% in. (77 x 60 cm). Private collection 

Fig. 18.2 Spoon with Pear-Shaped Bowl and Stem 
Crowned with Horseshoe, 1650. Silver, 7 x 214 in. 
(17.8 x 5.3 cm). Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam (inv. no. 

Fig. 18.3 Jan Davidsz. de Heem (1606-1684), Silver 
and Pewter Vessels with Grapes, a Lemon, and Oysters 
on a Draped Table, 1633. Oil on panel, 2514 x 21% in. 
(64 x 55 cm). Private collection 

Fig. 18.3 


Kalf, Still Life with a Porcelain Vase, Silver-gilt Ewer, and Glasses 



Fig. TR18.1 X-radiograph marked at old foldover 
edges to show extended tacking margins. Note that 
the edges of the extended painting have been 

Fig. TR18.2 Infrared reflectogram 

The original support is a plain-weave, 
medium-weight coarse fabric; it is lined 
with what appears to be a wax-resin 
adhesive applied to a stiff, plain-weave, 
fiberglass fabric that is backed with 
canvas that is probably not adhered. 

The painting is tacked to a heavy expan¬ 
sion bolt stretcher. 

The tacking edges of the original sup¬ 
port have been flattened and painted 
to extend the picture on each side: 
the left and right sides and the top each 
were extended by Vz inch, and the bot¬ 
tom by about 3 A inch. The X-radiograph 
exposes lines of paint loss along the 
inside edges of the extensions and tack 
holes within the extensions, indicating 
that the painting was once attached to 
a smaller stretcher. The original ground 
continues over the extensions, but there 
is no original painted imagery. The 
texture of the extensions is noticeably 
different from the rest of the painting. 
The sides of the original canvas have 
strong scalloping (fig. TR18.1). 

The support has a double ground: 
a thick, bright red layer directly on the 
canvas and a thinner, light gray layer 
that contains carbon black on top. The 
infrared reflectogram (IRR) showed 
later overpaint on all sides of the paint¬ 
ing, due to its expanded size. This 
overpaint shows up as black in IRR due 
to its carbon-black content (fig. TR18.2). 
While no obvious underdrawing was 
found in IRR, several of the objects do 
have faint, thin outlines, but these all 
appear to be on the paint surface rather 
than below the paint. It is possible, 
however, that underdrawing exists, for 
the still-life objects may have been 
outlined with a material that is either 
transparent in infrared or does not 
provide enough contrast with the 
double ground in this painting to be 
visible. 1 It is also possible that under¬ 
drawing is being blocked by the high 
proportion of carbon black in the upper 
paint layers. 

The artist laid in the design and 
shadows with thin, dark brown paint. 
Paints range from thick, opaque, 
and pasty to thin and transparent. The 
background paint, a semi-opaque 
brown color containing lead white, 
ochers, and probably carbon-black 

pigments, allows the gray ground layer 
beneath to show through. The back¬ 
ground color was applied around the 
objects, but the glass vessels were 
painted over it. 

The ewer was laid in with a transparent, 
dark brown paint for the shadows and 
a translucent, warm color for the lighter 
areas. The quick, thick dabs of paint 
that give the ewer its texture and visual 
impact contain the pigments lead-tin 
yellow, vermilion-cinnabar, earth colors, 
and lead white in various mixtures 
(fig. TR18.3). The gray ground shows 
through the thinly painted areas and 
dabs of paint to help create the tone 
and modeling of the object. The shad¬ 
owed areas were painted with thicker 
applications of medium-rich, dark paint 
and glazes that may contain copper- 
resinate pigment that has discolored. 
The thick dabs of paint in the shaded 
areas were glazed with a dark color. 

The form of the porcelain vase was 
painted with paints that contain gray 
and blue smalt, and lead-white 
pigments; the paint appears somewhat 
murky. The design was then painted 


Kalf, Still Life with a Porcelain Vase, Silver-gilt Ewer, and Glasses 

Fig. TR18.3 Digital micrograph (5X magnification) 
of the neck of the ewer showing thick, opaque daubs 
of paint on the gray underlayer, probably the 

Fig. TR18.4 Digital micrograph (5X magnification) 
of pocket watch showing the violet color of the 

with dark gray-green paint that contains 
smalt. High magnification revealed 
crystal-like patterns in the paint of the 
design, which may be the result of an 
interaction of alkali metal ions from the 
deteriorating smalt pigment and the oil 

The gold watch and the pewter plates 
were painted over the dark gray back¬ 
ground with a semitransparent layer of 
light-violet-colored paint, which 
appears bright magenta under magnifi¬ 
cation (fig. TR18.4). The artist laid in the 
orange fruit with a bright reddish- 
orange paint containing the pigments 
vermilion-cinnabar and ochers. He then 
glazed this layer with darker translu¬ 
cent colors to give form and added some 
dabs of yellow paint to vary the color 
and texture. 

On the extreme right side, the edge of 
the pewter bowl has been overpainted— 
probably to complete the image when 
the composition was enlarged. It was 
not possible to see from the IRR if Kalf 
originally painted the bowl truncated 
and it was only later extended with 
overpaint when the painting was made 

larger, or if he painted the full bowl 
and its edge was overpainted to hide 

The gray table was painted with dark to 
lighter streaks of gray paint. The dark 
cloth over the table was painted with 
a medium-tone green paint layer that 
was covered with a dark green glaze. 

The pigments for the cloth are mostly 
copper based, which could include 
copper resinate, azurite, and/or verdigris. 
Since the area is very dark and difficult 
to read today, the medium-tone green 
paint layer may have been glazed with 
copper resinate that has discolored to 
dark brown. 

Reportedly, there were remains of 
a signature at lower center, but nothing 
of a signature was found with this 

The painting is in rather good condition. 
A crackle pattern of medium size 
runs throughout the paint and ground 
layers, but it is more visible in the 
lighter colors. The strong lining must 
have flattened the cracks so that they 
are now only slightly lifted. Some cracks 
have been toned. Bands of abrasion 
exist along the upper and lower edges 
of the painting. 

A number of areas of restoration show 
in ultraviolet light: thin retouching 
is evident around the objects on the left 
side of the painting, and there may be 
a little toning of the decoration on the 
ewer. Retouching to the left and above 
the orange follows a circular form; 
perhaps the retouching disguises an 
earlier placement of the orange that had 
become more visible over time. Some 
darker paints may have been lightly 
toned to cover abrasion. 

An earlier varnish, probably a natural 
resin, fluoresces strongly yellow-green 
in ultraviolet light. The varnish was 
mostly removed in the lower right of 
the painting, but in the background 
and lower left, much of the earlier 
varnish remains. Some fluorescence 
may also be from the toning of abrasions 
with a paint that contains resin. The 
top varnish is an acrylic applied when 
the painting was treated, probably in 
the 1980s, at LACMA. 


1 If underdrawing was done with a material that 
appears similar to the ground in IRR, then it 
would be difficult to see. Therefore, a white or red 
chalk underdrawing would be very difficult to 
distinguish from the upper gray ground in IRR. 


Kalf, Still Life with a Porcelain Vase, Silver-gilt Ewer, and Glasses 

Philips Koninck 





Panoramic Landscape with a Village , Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter 

ca. 1648-49 M.2009.106.9 

Oil on wood, \\Vz x 14% in. 

(28.6x36.5 cm) 


V iewed from a low hill, the broad plains of Gelderland 
stretch to the distant horizon beneath a blanket 
of dark clouds. Alternating areas of light and shadow 
provide compositional structure and lead the eye into the 
distance. A dark shadow stretches across the foreground, 
where a rutted road circles around thatched houses on the 
left. Emerging from the shadow, it cuts diagonally across 
the sunlit meadow and then reverses itself in the direction 
of a distant village barely discernible in the shadows cast 
by the passing clouds. A line of trees planted along the canal 
after it makes a sharp turn hides the continuing path of the 
road into the distance. The reflection on the water of the 
sunlight breaking through the clouds forms an important 
compositional element balanced by the dark row of trees 
on the right. 

Panoramic Landscape with a Village is closely related to 
Philips Koninck's Wide River Landscape ( The Metropolitan 
Museum of Art, New York, inv. no. 63.43.2), a slightly larger 
painting on canvas. 1 In both paintings, sunlight breaks 
through the clouds and illuminates the glassy surface of 
a river. Another patch of sunlight draws the eye to a distant 
town and beyond that to an open plain or a large body 
of water. In the far distance the land rises slightly. The two 
paintings are among the earliest landscapes by Koninck, 
painted about 1648-49, a period when the artist, who had 
been living in Amsterdam by April 1642, was strongly 
influenced by the landscapes of Rembrandt Harmensz. van 
Rijn (1606-1669) as well as by the atmospheric panoramas 
of Hercules Seghers (1589/90-before 1638). Painted broadly 
in shades of golden yellow, brown, and black, unified 
by the reddish-brown tone of the panel, Konincks moody 
Panoramic Landscape with a Village recalls Rembrandt's 
landscapes of the late 1630s and early 1640s. Indeed, in the 
nineteenth century the Carter painting was considered 
a work by Rembrandt. 

In this early landscape, Koninck's effort to connect 
the foreground with the distant panorama is more success¬ 
ful than in many of his later, larger paintings, such as 
A Panoramic Landscape from 1665 (The J. Paul Getty Museum, 

Los Angeles, inv. no. 85.PA.32), in which there is an unbridge¬ 
able break between the two. 2 In the Carter painting, the 
foreground is compressed, “and the viewer has a slower, 
more complex imaginary passage through the landscape. 
The tight bend in the road... makes the space beyond 
appear more accessible and less vast, thereby adding an 
unusual note of intimacy to a panoramic landscape.” 3 The 
naturalism of these small landscapes on panel recalls 
Koninck's early panoramic drawings of known sites, inclu¬ 
ding Edam, El ten, and the Rhine Valley near Emmerich 
viewed from Spitzberg, which, even if not specifically 
portrayed in his paintings, informed his vision. 4 His com¬ 
positional interest in the sharp angles made by the water 
and reinforced by lines of trees is also found in his contem¬ 
porary drawings of a flat river landscape viewed across 
cornfields (fig. 19.1). 5 

Koninck's paintings suggest that he was a keen 
observer of the weather and the way it affects the lighting 
and mood of the landscape. In the Carter painting, muted 
earth tones suggest that the ground is moist with rain 
from the low, dark storm clouds. The weather was, in fact, 
a growing scientific study in the seventeenth century. Even 
before the invention of the air barometer in about 1643, 
which made it possible to measure changes in air pressure, 
scientists and amateurs made accurate records of meteoro¬ 
logical conditions. 6 In a diary kept in 1624, David Beck, 
a teacher in The Hague, begins each daily entry with a brief 
account of the weather before progressing to the activities 
of the day; on 30 June 1624, for example, he notes, “Morning 
gray, dark and rainy weather without sunshine, but after¬ 
noon bright with sunshine, yet throughout the whole day 
strong wind and storm from the northwest.” 7 Later in the 
day. Beck reported that he walked out of the city toward the 
fishing village of Scheveningen and stood on a high, dry 
dune to watch the weather. 8 Some of his friends had earlier 
gone to observe the stormy sea at Scheveningen, a scene 
captured by Jacob van Ruisdael in View from the Dunes to the 
Sea from the 1650s (Kunsthaus Zurich, inv. no. R31). 9 


Koninck, Panoramic Landscape with a Village 

The numerous panoramic landscapes painted by 
Koninck and other Dutch artists beginning in the 1640s, 
which were based on actual observation rather than their 
imaginations, apparently responded to contemporary 
interest. Accustomed to a flat landscape largely reclaimed 
from the sea, the Dutch appreciated opportunities to 
view the broad landscape from a dune or other elevated 
position (see cat. nos. 3,12). 10 Seventeenth-century guide¬ 
books recommend that when travelers arrived at a new 
place, they should first view the city from a church tower or 
the ramparts. 11 Beck frequently mentions climbing the 
church tower to show his visitors the view of the city and 
the land beyond. On 8 August 1624, for example, he reports 
that he had gone with a group of friends up the church 
tower in The Hague, where they lay for a good hour under 
the clock and looked out through a telescope (verreziender)M 
The telescope, the first working example of which 
appeared in 1608, undoubtedly stimulated the interest in 
panoramic landscapes by providing a magnified view of the 

distance. A print by Adriaen Pietersz. van de Venne (1589- 
1662) published by Johan de Brune (1588-1658) in Emblemata 
of zinne-werck (Amsterdam, 1624) shows a well-dressed 
gentleman using a telescope near a country estate (Getty 
Research Institute, Los Angeles, call number 2823-093). 13 
Viewing the landscape was a popular interest among people 
of all stations. To compensate for the naturally flat Dutch 
landscape, the statesman and scholar Constantijn Huygens 
(1596-1687), at his country estate Hofwijck, and Prince 
Johan Maurits of Nassau-Siegen (1604-1679), at his house in 
The Hague (the Mauritshuis), built artificial hills in their 
gardens from which they could view the surrounding 
landscape. 14 After his appointment in 1647 as stadholder at 
Cleves on the Dutch-German border, Maurits created 
a series of artificial viewing mountains, each with objects 
from nature and works of art. 15 The carefully selected and 
constructed viewing points provided the stadholder 
and his guests with impressive vistas of his property and the 
surrounding countryside. 


Koninck, Panoramic Landscape with a Village 

Fig. 19.1 

Fig. 19.1 Philips Koninck, Panorama ofRiver Landscape, 
1688. Brown and black ink with watercolor on paper, 
5-7 x 7% in. (14.5 x 20 cm). Teylers Museum, Haarlem, 
The Netherlands (inv. no. P+028) 


Koninck, Panoramic Landscape with a Village 



Fig. TR19.1 Infrared reflectogram 

Fig. TR19.2 Detail of underdrawn house visible 
only in IRR above and to the right of the boat 

The panel is about % inch thick and 
beveled. Wood strips have been added 
to the top and bottom with adhesives, 
making its present height 11 Vz inches. 
The panel has a thick, light-colored 
ground with a second thin pink ground 
on top. The X-radiograph shows broad 
and brushy horizontal strokes that 
may have to do with the application of 
the ground, but it did not indicate any 
changes to the composition. 

The infrared reflectogram (IRR) showed 
that the ground is reflective and bright 
white, an indication of the presence 
of calcium carbonate. When the contrast 
of the IRR was increased, dark lines were 
found throughout the composition 

(fig. TR19.1). Many of the lines visible 
in the IRR were also visible in normal 
light, so it is unclear if these actually 
represent underdrawing. However, 
several of the lines were covered by paint 
and therefore appeared only in IRR. 

The center of the scene revealed the out¬ 
line of a building that was not painted, 
and this, possibly a house (fig. TR19.2), 
along with other horizontal lines in the 
landscape are similar in character. They 
are dark and uneven in width, having 
a dry, broken appearance that suggests 
they may be charcoal or black-chalk 

The painting seems rather quickly 
executed. The design and shadows were 
laid in first with translucent, dark brown 
paint. The landscape, sky, and pink- 
roofed buildings in the center near the 

canal were then set in with local colors. 
The trees and boat were painted over 
the landscape. Strong light is necessary 
to view the details created with thick 
dark paint in the shaded foreground 
(fig. TR19.3). The upper part of the sky 
contains primarily smalt, but ultrama¬ 
rine may also be present. Blue azurite 
was predominantly used near the hori¬ 
zon. The wooded areas of the landscape 
have a first paint layer containing 
azurite, which may have been glazed 
with copper resinate. 

The surface coating fluoresces strongly 
in ultraviolet light, revealing some 
restoration scattered over the painting 
but mostly on the right side of the 


Koninck, Panoramic Landscape with a Village 

Fig. TR19.3 Detail of the lower left corner in good 
light showing the buildings and trees 

sky, which appears to have been abraded. 
IRR revealed dark amorphous areas in 
the sky that may have been overpainted. 

Two parallel, horizontal cracks appear 
above the horizon line on the right 
side, and there is some old insect damage 
in the wood panel. The lower crack 
extends about 4 to 6 inches into the pic¬ 
ture, and the upper one, at mid-sky, 
extends to the other side. In 1988 the 
split on the right side was repaired, and 
the varnish was saturated with a natural 
resin varnish. 


Koninck, Panoramic Landscape with a Village 

Aert van der Neer 





Frozen River with a Footbridge, 

ca. 1645-55 

Oil on wood, 15 x 19% in. (38.1 x 49.2 cm) 

Signed lower right: AVDN 

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward W. Carter 


B eneath a cold winter sky streaked with yellow and 
pink, a frozen river landscape stretches far into 
the distance, where the land seems to dissolve into 
the sky. The frozen river, the line of its shores softened by 
marsh grasses trapped by the winter ice, meanders back and 
forth in a zigzag pattern from the clump of denuded trees 
in the left foreground to the large windmill near the horizon. 
Winding under a footbridge, past the snow-covered thatched 
roofs and church tower of a village, the river eventually 
disappears beyond a masonry bridge in the center distance; 
farther right, a large windmill, a church, and houses are 
shrouded by mist. 

In the foreground, a woman and a boy walk down 
a rise huddled against the cold and wind that blows her red 
skirt. Their postures accentuate the impression of a cold 
winter day, when the waterways froze and became avenues 
of travel and stages for winter sports. Beyond them a man 
skates with a stick over his shoulder while a woman pulls 
a child on a sled in the opposite direction. On the far shore 
of the river a horse-drawn sledge ( bakslee ) transports passen¬ 
gers. In contrast to the figures in Winter Scene onaFrozen 
Canal (cat. no. 1) by Hendrick Avercamp who celebrate the 
frozen canal with a variety of sports, here the only actual 
recreational activity is enjoyed by two men who play a game 
of coif. A mainstay of winter scenes that could be played on 
land or ice, coif was a popular predecessor to modern golf. 

Infrared reflectography (IRR) of Frozen River with 
a Footbridge reveals pentimenti and evidence of underdraw¬ 
ing of the buildings, landscape, and figures (see Technical 
Report): a man pushing a sled in the center foreground, 
another man standing on the ice to the right of the child's 
sled, and two other figures on the ice behind the woman 
and boy in the immediate foreground. The numerous penti¬ 
menti found here and in many of Van der Neer's paintings 
reveal his efforts to position his figures in the landscape 
to complement and accent the composition. The scale of the 
figures in the final version of Frozen River with a Footbridge 
is significantly smaller than that of the figures revealed by 
IRR, suggesting that he thought the original figures over¬ 
powered the landscape. 

The repoussoir of tall, thin trees on the left and the 
limited number and smaller scale of the figures, which 
visually places them at a greater distance from the viewer, 
are typical of the group of small winter landscapes Aert 
van der Neer painted during the late 1640s and early 1650s. 
In these paintings (Cincinnati Art Museum, Ohio, inv. no. 
i 953 -i)/ as in the Carter landscape, the low horizon, complex 
composition, and smaller scale of the figures emphasize 
the vastness of the sky and frozen landscape, which serve as 
vehicles for his true subject—light and color. 

Although Van der Neer introduced dramatic lighting 
in many of his paintings from this group, such as Sports on 
a Frozen River (The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 
inv. no. 32.100.11), in which the setting sun casts a strong 
beam of light across the ice through the center of the com¬ 
position and reflections throughout the landscape, the 
effect of light in the Carter painting is subtle: the winter sun 
is low in the sky, but it is not yet setting. Hidden behind 
the buildings on the left, where the reflection of indirect 
sunlight is suggested by the rosy tones, the sun illuminates 
the sky, which in turn produces the reflections on the ice. 
Although common to skating scenes beginning with Pieter 
Bruegel the Elder (ca. 1525-1569), the reflections in Van 
der Neer's paintings are more closely related to the general 
luminosity of the painting. 2 Similarly, whereas his predeces¬ 
sors employed an even covering of snow, here and in his 
other winter landscapes. Van der Neer uses white sparingly. 
White paint thinly applied over the ocher imprimatura 
of the panel captures the effect of ice and a dusting of snow 
on the frozen ground, while daubs of bright white paint 
suggest snow on the rooftops and sides of trees glistening 
in the sunlight. 

Van der Neer's representation of a limited number of 
villagers who go about their daily activities is closer to 
Esaias van de Velde (see cat. no. 31) than to Avercamp, whose 
compositions are typically filled with colorful middle- and 
upper-class people celebrating the freezing of the waterways. 
Painted in the same brownish-black tones as the exposed 
earth, trees, and dead grasses, the figures in Van der Neer's 
paintings, like those of Van de Velde, appear to be a natural 
part of the landscape. 


Van der Neer, Frozen River with a Footbridge 



Fig. TR20.1 Infrared reflectogram 

Fig. TR20.2 Detail in IRR showing pentimenti 
of larger-scale figures in background, behind the 
boy and red-skirted woman 

The panel is about 14 inch thick and 
composed of two boards with the join 
about 7 Vs inches from the top of the 
painting. The join is reinforced by a strip 
of fabric glued on the reverse, probably 
applied after the execution of the paint¬ 
ing. The panel, which is a little rough 
on the reverse, has shallow bevels on 
all sides. It is in good condition except 
for a small loss at the lower left corner. 

A double ground consists of a thin pink 
layer directly on the wood panel and 
a gray layer on top. The pink ground and 
the color and texture of the wood show 
through the gray ground, giving the 
painting a pinkish tonality. 

Infrared reflectography (IRR) revealed 
extensive underdrawing as well as 
numerous pentimenti. The artist drew 
the design on the ground in a free, 

cursory manner, possibly with charcoal 
or black chalk as well as with brushes 
(fig. TR20.1). The good contrast between 
the calcium-carbonate ground and the 
carbon-black underdrawing, in addi¬ 
tion to the transparency of the upper 
paint layers, makes the underdrawing 
clearly visible in IRR. 1 Van der Neer 
changed and omitted some drawn forms 
as he developed the painting; penti¬ 
menti visible in IRR indicate that he also 
overpainted some figures that he had 
already partially painted. The landscape, 
buildings, and figures are all under¬ 
drawn with black chalk or charcoal; the 
lines are characteristically powdery, 
skip over the ground texture, and vary 
in width. 

The pentimenti indicate that Van der 
Neer reduced the scale of the final 
figures. Some of the original figures are 
more than twice as large as the final 
figures (fig. TR20.2). He abandoned all 
of these larger figures, covering them 
with lead-white paint over which he 
painted the smaller, final figures. The 

original figures are also now partially 
visible to the naked eye as gray-blue 
shadows due to the increased transpar¬ 
ency of the aged paint. 

While some pentimenti are just sketchy 
outlines, some figures were seemingly 
completely finished before being aban¬ 
doned and painted out. These figures 
were developed with a paint containing 
carbon black in a manner that closely 
resembles the technique of the final, 
finished figures. 

The most significant pentimento is that 
of a very large figure in the foreground 
pushing a sled in which there may 
be a passenger. This large figure, which 
was developed from the initial outlines 
with a wash or paint that contains 
carbon-black pigment, was later covered 
up with the green-brown rushes of the 


Van der Neer, Frozen River with a Footbridge 

Fig. TR20.3 Detail in IRR showing pentimento of 
larger-scale male figure pushing a sled in fore¬ 
ground, now covered by the rushes. Note that this 
figure seems to have been developed beyond just 
outlines, unlike the sled and its contents. 

Fig. TR20.4 Detail of female figure in foreground, 

riverbank (fig. TR20.3). Another penti¬ 
mento, that of a man bending slightly 
at the shoulders, is visible to the right of 
the two men on the left side of the 
painting. To the right, above the boy 
and woman, is another larger figure. 
Farther to the right between the woman 
pulling a child on a sled and the man 
with the staff is a figure who may be 
fishing through a hole in the ice. This 
figure was also painted over by the 
artist. Even the horse drawing the sled 
on the far right riverbank has been 
shifted in position. The IRR shows the 
earlier legs and head or harness. 

Paints range from opaque whites and 
blues to translucent, dark, warm colors. 
The paint was directly applied with 
a range of brush sizes, including very 
fine brushes for the grasses in the 
foreground. The blue of the sky was 
applied, leaving some reserves for the 
denser clouds. Peach, gray, and cream 
colors were applied over the paint of the 
sky and clouds in varying thicknesses. 
The warm colors of the landscape in the 

foreground were created with thin 
glazes that allow the color of the 
ground to show through and affect the 
overall tonality of the painting. Trees 
were painted over the sky, and figures 
over the landscape. 

Some of the lighter colors contain lead 
white and also large, coarse particles, 
likely calcite, which were perhaps added 
for some transparency. The dark 
shadows in the picture likely contain 
carbon black that is warmed with ochers 
and umber. Ultramarine was used for 
the brightest blue of the sky, and smalt 
for the gray clouds. 

The picture appears fairly detailed and 
carefully worked up, but there is 
actually little concern for gradations of 
tones. Instead, figures are depicted 
with an outline and well-placed strokes 
of local color (fig. TR20.4). The same 

technique was used for the large tree 
trunks; brushstrokes that curve around 
the trunks create volume. 

The signature in yellow paint was 
applied on top of dry paint. It appears 
in good condition. 

The X-radiograph does not show the 
earlier design ideas that are visible 
in IRR. However, it does reveal a few 
other developments and changes. Above 
the horizon, especially on the right 
half of the picture, a series of rounded 
forms may have had something to 
do with the development of the clouds. 

The painting has some abrasion from 
past cleanings, and there are numerous 
small areas of restoration, mainly 
in the center of the sky, where the wood 
grain has been toned. There is light 
enhancement of some outlines, such as 
tree branches. 


1 Calcium carbonate is IR-reflective and appears 
bright white in IRR; carbon black is IR-absorbing 
and appears dark in IRR. 


Van der Neer, Frozen River with a Footbridge 

Clara Peeters 

(act. 1607-21) 




still Life with Cheeses, Artichoke, Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward W. Carter 

and Cherries, ca. 1615 M.2003.108.8 

Oil on wood, 13 Vs x 18% in. 

(33.3x46.7 cm) 

Signed lower left, on edge of table: CLARA. P. 


I n a surprisingly modern composition of simple, 

powerful forms and strong saturated colors set against 
a dark background, Clara Peeters presents the elements 
of a simple meal: a stack of three cheeses surmounted 
by a blue-and-white bowl with shaved butter, a roll, half an 
artichoke, cherries, and a silver saltcellar. A single cherry pit 
and slice of artichoke lie on the table next to a knife, 
suggesting that someone, perhaps the viewer, has already 
sampled the food. 

Still Life with Cheeses, Artichoke, and Cherries , generically 
known as a breakfast piece (ontbijt), combines in a unique 
way elements associated with still lifes painted in Haarlem 
and Antwerp during the first decades of the seventeenth 
century. The stack of cheese is a familiar motif in the paint¬ 
ings produced in Haarlem by Nicolaes Gillis (act. 1612-32), 
Floris van Schooten (ca. 1585-1656), and Floris Claesz. van 
Dijck (ca. 1575-1651) in which costly dinnerware, fruit, and 
cheeses are arranged on a table laid with a damask cloth 
(Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv. no. SK-A-4821). These often 
large-scale compositions view the still lifes from above so 
that the individual elements appear as isolated forms on 
a tilted tabletop. Described with local color and cast in even 
light, the objects fill the composition without focus. 

The vantage point of Peeters's painting in the Carter 
collection is both lower and closer than that of the paint¬ 
ings produced in Haarlem, bringing the viewer into direct 
contact with the limited number of objects placed on 
an unadorned wood table, the front edge of which all but 
disappears. The intimate view is typical of still lifes painted 
in Antwerp; Peeters's dense compositions and interest 
in geometric forms are particularly close to works by Osias 
Beert the Elder (ca. 1580-1623), such as Still Life with Artichokes, 
Fruit, and Wineglasses (Musee de Grenoble, inv. no. MC434), 
leading to the suggestion that she may have studied 
with Beert. 1 In comparison with BeerFs paintings, the lower 
vantage point of Peeters's painting produces a more cohesive 
composition in which the objects overlap and cast shad¬ 
ows on each other, suggesting tangible space and volume. 
Peeters balances the predominant colors of the butter, the 
dish, artichoke, and cherries with the earth tones of the 
cheese and bread. Reflected light plays an important role 
in her painting: the cheese, artichoke, and cherries are 
reflected in the pewter plates. Highlights on the edges of 
the plates, the knife, and saltcellar emphasize their texture 
and sculptural presence. Peeters's interest in defining 
reflections on metallic surfaces was shared by many of her 
contemporaries, especially those in Haarlem, where it 
would become a characteristic of the paintings by the next 
generation of still-life painters—Pieter Claesz. (see cat. 
no. 8) and Willem Claesz. Heda (see cat. no. 13), as well as 
in the still lifes of Jan Davidsz. de Heem (1606-1683/84), 
who moved from Leiden to Antwerp during the early 1630s. 

The Carter painting is a tour de force of Peeters's 
skill in representing different textures: smooth metal ves¬ 
sels, the crisp roll, firm cherries, the halved artichoke, 
and the three cheeses. Her description of the different parts 
of the cooked artichoke sliced in half is unrivaled. She skill¬ 
fully defines and differentiates the sharp, dry outer leaves 
sof the vegetable, the silky smooth surface of the firm heart, 
and the delicate, crimson, immature leaves of the choke. 
Rendered with fluidly drawn individual strokes of different 
colors, the inner leaves have an abstract beauty of their 
own. Peeters repeated the motif of the sliced artichoke and 
cherries on a pewter plate with a saltcellar in another paint¬ 
ing in which they are combined with a prominent dish of 
langostinos, a rummer of white wine, a roll, and a crockery 
jug, but no cheese (fig. 21.1) J 

Peeters was the first artist to exploit the beauty of 
the different textures and colors of the sliced artichoke in 
her paintings, beginning with Still Life with an Artichoke, 
a Stoneware Jug, a Wan-Li Dish with Butter, Cherries, and a Herring, 
dated 1612 (private collection). 3 In a still life of fish dated 
1611 (Museo del Prado, Madrid, inv. no. P001621), Peeters 
represents stems of whole artichokes in a colander, a motif 
that first appears in French and Flemish still lifes in the late 
sixteenth century, coincidental with the introduction of 
the plant from France to the Netherlands. By at least 1605, 
at which time they were locally grown, whole artichokes 
frequently appear in the kitchen and larder scenes of Frans 
Snyders (1579-1657) that celebrate the abundance of the 
local agricultural economy. 1 

Peeters was equally skilled in defining the cheeses. 
Employing remarkably thin paint, she suggests the differ¬ 
ent degrees of moisture or dryness of the crumbly, large 
wheel of cheese, the firm, dry, green wedge, and the creamy 
square of soft cheese. Crumbs of cheese on the pewter plate 
and grains of salt on the rim of the silver saltcellar contrib¬ 
ute to the tangible reality of the food and the intimacy of 
the representation. Although she included similar stacks sof 
cheeses in several of her paintings (Mauritshuis, The Hague, 
inv. no. 1203), slight differences in the shapes and the irreg¬ 
ular cuts of the cheeses, as well as the shadows, suggest 
that each was independently painted, though not necessar¬ 
ily from life. 

Various attempts have been made to interpret still lifes 
with stacks of cheeses. One theory is that the stack of cheeses 
in the Haarlem banquet pieces represented “impious luxury,” 
and that because cheese was subject to decay, it was a warn¬ 
ing about transience and vanity. 5 The addition of a dish of 
butter shavings to the top of the stack of cheesse in Peeter s’s 
paintings prompted the association with the aphorism 
“zuivel op zuivel isT werk van den duivel” (dairy on dairy is 
the work of the devil), warning against the extravagance 
of eating cheese with butter. 6 


Peeters, Still Life with Cheeses, Artichoke, and Cherries 

Without a specific text directly associated with the 
painting, it is questionable whether Peeters intended to 
convey a moral warning. The observations of a seventeenth- 
century English traveler to the Netherlands suggest that 
on one level the Carter painting reflects the actual habits of 
Peeters's contemporaries: 

They have four or five sorts of cheese; three they usually 
bring forth and set before you: 1. Those great round 
cheeses, coloured red on the outside, commonly in 
England called Holland-cheeses. 2. Cummin-seed 
cheese. 3. Green cheese, said to be so coloured with the 
juice of sheep's dung. This they scrape upon bread 
buttered, and so eat. 4. Sometimes angelots [small size 
camembert]. 5. Cheese like our common country cheese. 1 

Salt, which was essential for making cheese and butter 
and preserving food for long voyages, was also considered 
an important part of the meal. 8 In Schat dergesontheyt (Treasury 
of Good Health), originally published in 1636, the Dordrecht 
physician Johan van Beverwijck (1594-1647), who warned 
against eating old cheese, recommended salt to open (stimu¬ 
late) the stomach and cheese to close it. 9 According to a poem 
by Jacob Cats (1577-1660), published in the chapter on salt 
in Schat der gesontheyt, “One can do better on earth without 
gold, than without salt.” 10 The value associated with salt is 
reflected in the costly cylindrical silver saltcellars decorated 
with delicately etched flourishes in Peeters's still lifes. 

Both salt and cheese were also important commodities 
for the Dutch economy. Salt brought from France, Portugal, 
and Spain as well as from the West Indies was refined in 
Zeeland and transported in Dutch ships throughout Europe, 
especially to cities on the Baltic, which has a very low salt 
content. In the seventeenth century, as now, Holland was 
particularly known for the production of cheese. Its large, 
healthy cattle were famous for producing milk that far 
exceeded in quantity and quality that of cows elsewhere in 
Europe. 11 A seventeenth-century observer marveled that 
at Amsterdam's weekly market there was “nothing other 
than butter and cheese, and that in such quantity that it 
appeared as a wonder for the foreigner who could buy 

nothing less than a whole cheese or a small vat of butter.'' 12 
One scholar has calculated that between 1641 and 1650, 
the city of Gouda alone marketed an average of 4,892,000 
pounds of cheese a year. 13 The close association of the dairy 
industry with the earth and with the prosperity of the 
Netherlands appears in the allegorical print Earth (Terra) by 
Nicolaes de Bruyn (1571-1656) after a design by Maerten de 
Vos (1532-1603), the upper margin of which includes a stack 
of cheeses and a butter churn, as well as a cow, traditionally 
associated with the earth on which it grazes (fig. 21.2). In the 
side margins are representations of fruit and vegetables. 

Peeters's Still Life with Cheeses, Artichoke, and Cherries 
similarly includes only locally produced food. Like the large 
still lifes of Snyders, the painting continues the tradition 
of the xenia of ancient Greece, still lifes of foodstuffs by which 
the prosperous Athenians showed off their well-stocked 
larders. The coincidence of the Twelve Years' Truce from 1609 
to 1621 and the production of still lifes of local produce 
in both the Southern and the Northern Netherlands during 
the second decade of the seventeenth century suggest an 
additional association. Since antiquity, the prosperity of the 
land has been associated with peace. Lamenting the abuse 
and neglect the land suffered during the long war with 
Spain, seventeenth-century Dutch poets praised the produc¬ 
tivity of the Netherlands during times of peace and the 
ability to spread a bounteous table with food that came from 
the surrounding countryside. 14 Arranged with a keen 
sense of design and appreciation for the different textures 
and colors that invite the viewer to participate in the meal, 
Peeters's painting celebrates the prosperity of the house¬ 
hold as well as the local dairy industry and the fertility of 
the land, which would have been recognized by her contem¬ 
poraries as benefits of political peace. 

Suitably, this masterpiece by Peeters, one of the few 
woman painters of the seventeenth century to be recog¬ 
nized for her pioneering achievement as an independent 
painter, was much later owned by the first Dutch woman 
to earn a doctorate in art history, Johanna Suzanne Goekoop- 
de Jongh (1877-1946). 15 


Peeters, Still Life with Cheeses, Artichoke, and Cherries 

Fig. 21.1 

Fig. 21.2 

Fig. 21.1 Clara Peeters, Still Life with Crayfish 
and an Artichoke, ca. 1615, oil on panel, 13 x 18 Vs in. 
(33 x 46 cm). Private collection 

Fig. 21.2 Nicolaes de Bruyn (1571-1656) after 
Maerten de Vos (1532-1603), Terra, ca. 1600. 
Engraving, y 5 /s x 9 in. (19.5 x 23 cm). The British 
Museum, London (inv. no. 1937,0915.341) 


Peeters, Still Life with Cheeses, Artichoke, and Cherries 



Fig. TR21.1 Infrared reflectogram 

Fig. TR21.2 A detail in IRR of the artichoke reserve 
shows that the artist precisely applied the darker 
paints of the background plate and saltcellar up to 
and around the artichoke shape but not through it. 
This suggests that an outline probably exists, but it 
is not visible in infrared. Note the streaky 
imprimatura in the body of the artichoke. 

Fig. TR21.3 Digital micrograph (50X magnification) 
of the tips of the artichoke, showing the different 

Fig. TR21.4 Detail of the butter on plate showing 
the paint application in both 

The panel, about % inch thick, has been 
cradled, but the edges of the panel 
retain some beveling. The center of the 
cradle is engraved De Wild Holland, 
presumably the name of the manufac¬ 
turer. The panel has a slight horizontal 
convex bow. The left side of the panel 
is Vs inch taller than the right side, and 
the bottom is 14 inch wider than the 
top. A loss at the lower left edge of the 
panel was restored with a piece of wood 
(14 inch wide by 2 inches high). The 
lower right corner has some small losses. 
The top and bottom edges show minor 
deterioration, possibly caused by insects. 

The cream- or peach-colored ground is 
fairly thick or may be composed of more 
than one layer. The infrared reflecto¬ 
gram (IRR) (fig. TR21.1) revealed that an 
overall streaky imprimatura, contain¬ 
ing carbon-black pigment, had been 
applied with a wide brush over the 
ground layer. Some of the brushstrokes 
are vertical, while others are horizontal. 

IRR also revealed faint dark lines 
around some of the still-life elements. 
These outlines have been used to define 

the areas of reserve in this relatively 
complex composition. A good example 
is the artichoke, where the IRR shows 
thin, dark lines that set out precisely 
the area to be kept in reserve. Peeters 
then applied the darker paints of 
the background plate and saltcellar up 
to and around the artichoke but not 
through it. The artichoke was painted 
next, and the outer green leaves overlay 
the dark background and saltcellar 
(fig. TR21.2). 

Several pentimenti, visible in IRR, 
indicate the artist reduced the size of 
some of the still-life elements. Two 
examples where the reserves are larger 
than the finished objects are the bread 
roll on the right side of the painting— 
this was originally higher and larger— 
and the large metal plate on the right 
side of the painting, which also has 
a larger and higher reserve. It is more 
difficult to tell if the sizes of the other 
still-life elements have been changed. 
The left and right edges of the blue 
butter plate, the largest cheese, and the 
saltcellar have halos that could be 
interpreted as earlier, larger shapes, but 
these halos may also be the result of 
the artist working out the contours 
of each object in paint. Interesting, 

however, is the fact that the larger halos 
exist where most of the retouching is 
located. This retouching shows up dark 
in the IRR. If these halos are the result 
of earlier, larger still-life elements, that 
might explain the presence of the 
retouching. Over time paint becomes 
transparent and these earlier shapes 
may have become visible. IRR also 
revealed a rectangular area located in 
the upper left corner of the painting 
where there is less carbon-black paint. 

The entire painting is surprisingly 
thinly painted, even the tangible bread 
roll. Thin, dark paints describe the 
crust, and highlights are only relatively 
thicker. The white of the roll was 
painted with cream- and brown-colored 
paints applied with curling strokes of 
small brushes. The cheeses were simi¬ 
larly painted, except for the dark cheese, 
which is composed mostly of thin 
washes of dark browns over the ground. 


Peeters, Still Life with Cheeses, Artichoke, and Cherries 

Peeters described the artichoke in detail 
with numerous fine strokes of various 
colors. The pink choke has a thin, light 
gray underpaint that allows the ground 
to show through it. This gray layer is 
glazed with green-blue paint contain¬ 
ing a copper-based pigment and 
finished with fine, individual strokes of 
local color, for example, pink for the 
inner leaves of the choke. These strokes 
of paint have soft, rounded edges. The 
tiny, pointed tips of the artichoke's 
outer leaves are remarkably detailed. 
Each tip was painted with a tan color 
that was lined on the inside with a short 
stroke of red (vermilion-cinnabar). 
Finally, cream-colored highlights were 
applied (fig. TR21.3). Only with higher 
magnification can one appreciate the 
artist's efforts. 

The first layer of the cherries is an 
orange-colored paint that contains at 
least the pigment vermilion-cinnabar, 
which was applied over the already 
painted pewter plate and tabletop. The 
artist glazed the orange layer with a red 
lake that was made thicker and richer 
for the shadows. A touch of white 
provides the highlight that completes 
the globes of fruit. 

The blue decoration of the porcelain 
plate was colored by the pigment 
ultramarine; where there is no decora¬ 
tion, the streaky, dark gray imprimatura 
on the ground is visible. Thin shadows 
and highlights give form to the plate. 
The butter on the plate is painted with 
parallel, slightly curling strokes of 
cream- to light-brown-colored paints, 
which contain primarily the pigments 
lead-tin yellow and lead white. Thin 
brown shadows were applied in a brushy 
manner (fig. TR21.4). 

The thin brown paint of the background 
courses around the still life, which may 
already have been painted or laid in 
to some extent. Peeters left some space, 
which may be part of a reserve, between 
the objects and the first application 
of the background, perhaps to allow 
adjustments. These areas appear in IRR 
as halos of some objects. To complete 
the painting, the artist worked back and 
forth, from background to still life, 
adjusting the size and form of objects. 

The pewter plate was painted around 
the artichoke, the outer leaves of which 
overlap the cheese and saltcellar. The 
bread roll was laid in or held in reserve 
before the table was painted; after 
the cheese plate was painted, the artist 
raised the top of the roll slightly. The 
X-radiograph showed no obvious 

The majuscule letters of the signature 
are a medium dark gray color. They 
show some abrasion but remain mostly 

The condition of the painting is good. 
Ultraviolet light (UV) exposed scattered, 
discreet restorations in the background 
that were no doubt applied to hide 
fine cracks with tiny losses. There also 
seems to be some toning on the table 
and background to cover abrasions and 
cracked thin paint. The light blue 
decoration of the plate may have lost 
some glaze in the areas of shadow. The 
painting has a very thick and plastic 
varnish, which has a strong fluorescence 
in UV. The final varnish application 
appears to have been sprayed. 


Peeters, Still Life with Cheeses, Artichoke, and Cherries 

Jan Porcellis 





Vessels in a Moderate Breeze, ca. 1629 Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter Collection 

Oil on wood, 16% x 24 Vi in. M.2009.106.10 

(41.3 x 61.6 cm) 

Signed lower right, on plank: IP 


essels in a Moderate Breeze is what seventeenth-century 
Dutch inventories refer to as eengrauwtje —literally, 

“a small gray.” 1 Painted loosely using a monochro¬ 
matic palette of gray paint applied so thinly that the pink 
tone of the lightly prepared wood panel is visible, the 
picture evokes the impression of a pervasive atmosphere 
heavily laden with moisture. The atmospheric effect mutes 
the brown color of the boats and red clothing of the sailors 
as well as the pale blue sky that visually merges with the 
heaving sea. 

Vessels in a Moderate Breeze represents a remarkable 
break from the large, carefully defined, colorful compositions 
filled with anecdotal detail and dramatic action that Jan 
Porcellis painted early in his career under the influence of 
Hendrick Cornelisz. Vroom (1563-1640), such as A Sea Battle 
by Night and A Storm at Sea. 2 By the late 1620s, the probable 
date of the Carter panel, Porcellis had introduced a new 
genre of marine painting focused on the inland fishing and 
transport boats that supported the local Dutch economy. 
Restricting the composition to three anonymous single-mast 
boats, reducing the color range to near monochrome, and 
lowering the horizon, he makes the open water, sky, and 
atmosphere the real subject of his painting. Human presence 
is virtually absent. It is the white foam of the waves rising 
and splashing in irregular patterns and the dark, billowing 
clouds scudding across the pale blue sky that command 
our attention. 

Despite the painting's apparent simplicity, Porcellis 
carefully planned Vessels in a Moderate Breeze, which is one of 
his most successful compositions. Virtually abandoning 
the compositional device of a dark foreground, he places the 
viewer directly in the picture, seemingly on a boat following 
the same course as the three boats seen heeling in the stiff 
wind. The diminishing scale and clarity of the boats sailing 
on a diagonal path toward the distant horizon create the 
impression of pictorial depth. Mounting toward the right, 
storm clouds blown by the brisk breeze that stirs up the 
sea continue the diagonal line of the wind-filled sails. Loose 
brushstrokes of rapidly applied thin, at times transparent, 
paint emphasize the movement of the pounding waves. 

According to Samuel van Hoogstraten (1627-1678), 
Porcellis, whom he called “the great Raphael of sea painting” 
(dien grooten Raphel in \ zeeschilderen), achieved the 

“discriminating naturalness” (keurlijker natuerlijkheyt)— 
the freshness and spontaneity—of his paintings by care¬ 
fully and fully conceptualizing his composition before he 
began to paint. 3 Several closely related drawings and paint¬ 
ings from the late 1620s show that Porcellis was working 
out ideas that found their most satisfying resolution in the 
Carter painting, which probably dates about 1629. The 
composition of Vessels in a Moderate Breeze is closely related to 
an ink and gray wash drawing. 4 Drawn by Porcellis and 
published in 1627 by Claes Jansz. Visscher II (1587-1652), it 
represents boats sailing along a diagonal course toward the 
viewer (Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv. no. RP-P-OB-6706). 5 
A large drawing by Porcellis in the Musee du Louvre, Paris 
(inv. no. 23290), of a boat heeling in the wind similar to 
the foremost boat in the Carter painting is an independent 
work from about the same time. 6 As in the Louvre drawing, 
in which a rowboat sails toward the left near the horizon, 
in the Carter painting Porcellis subtly balances the composi¬ 
tion by placing a large merchant ship sailing on the horizon 
toward the right. In the distant left, a rowboat mounts the 
waves in the opposite direction. Confronting the challenge 
of the sea, the sailors are nevertheless in control. 7 The care¬ 
fully balanced composition using only a few elements is 
also found in other paintings by Porcellis from the late 1620s, 
including Sailboats and Rowboats on a Slightly Restless Sea 
(Museum De Lakenhal, Leiden, inv. no. S 877) and Stormy Sea 
(Alte Pinakothek, Munich, inv. no. 5742). Dated 1629, they 
share with the Carter painting the monochromatic palette 
and the loose handling of the waves and broad expanse of sky. 

Enormously popular during his lifetime, paintings 
by Porcellis were owned by some of the most famous painters 
of the seventeenth century, including Rembrandt (six), 
Rubens (one), Allaert van Everdingen (thirteen), and Jan van 
de Cappelle (sixteen). Porcellis's aligning of boats along 
a diagonal receding across an open stretch of water became 
a standard device in marine painting. The impact of his 
innovative works was realized not only in marine paintings 
but also in the landscapes of Jan van Goyen (1596-1656), 
Salomon van Ruysdael (1600/1603-1670), and the Haarlem 
landscape painters of the late 1620s and 1630s, who adopted 
low horizons and towering skies with shifting clouds for 
both compositional and emotional effects. 


Porcellis, Vessels in a Moderate Breeze 



Fig. TR22.1 Infrared reflectogram 

The panel is approximately 3 /s inch 
thick and beveled. It is in excellent 
condition except for a mild bow. The 
panel is Vs inch taller on the left edge 
than on the right. 

The light-colored ground is quite thin 
and not very opaque. Infrared reflectog- 
raphy (IRR) found no underdrawing 
(fig. TR22.1). It may be that Porcellis 
began his painting directly on the panel 
starting with cursory brushstrokes 
that were then developed and incorpo¬ 
rated into the overall composition. This 
was also discovered in the landscape 
paintings by Esaias van de Velde (cat. no. 
31), Philips Koninck (cat. no. 19), and 
Jan van Goyen (cat. nos. 11,12). If Porcellis 

had used an underdrawing material 
such as red chalk or certain pigments 
that are transparent in IRR, then 
the underdrawing would be extremely 
difficult to detect. 

The paints are generally thinly applied, 
leaving evident brushstrokes. The 
color of the wood passing through the 
thin ground and paint layers gives 
the picture an overall pinkish tonality. 
The grain of the wood is also visible 
on the surface of the painting. 

The sky and clouds were worked up 
directly on the ground with blue paint 
that contains smalt for the blue sky 
and white-to-gray paints for the clouds 
and sea. Where the paint is very thinly 
applied, the wood color helps to create 

the shadows of the clouds and waves. 
Most of the vessels were painted over 
the already painted sea. However, the 
hull and sails of the foremost boat were 
painted on the ground layer, though 
some of its lines and masts were painted 
into the wet paint of the sky. 

The dark paint of the signature was 
brushed into the lighter wet paint of the 
plank. The small brush left a groove in 
the wet paint, pushing the dark paint to 
its sides. 


Porcellis, Vessels in a Moderate Breeze 

A crackle pattern is present throughout 
the paint layers, but it is most notice¬ 
able in the sky. Although the painting 
is in good condition, there have been 
several campaigns of restoration. 
Ultraviolet light shows toning of the 
wood grain, which had no doubt 
become more obvious over time. To the 
right of the foreground sail, there is 
a vertical, irregular l-inch-wide restora¬ 
tion from the horizon up into the lower 
sky, which is visible in the IRR. The 
cloud and sea near the horizon on the left 
side of the painting have some toning. 
The cloud at the upper left appears dark 
in ultraviolet light, as if it had been 
lightly toned in an earlier restoration 
and the tone covers original paint. The 
varnish is rather flat and a little hazy. 


Porcellis, Vessels in a Moderate Breeze 


Frans Post 


Brazilian Landscape Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward W. Carter 

with Plantation House , 1655 M.2003.108.3 

Oil on wood, 18% x 24% in. 


(46.7x62.9 cm) 


Signed and dated lower center, on rock: F. Post/165[5]; 


inscribed in dark paint on left center tree above the 
roof: D 


B razilian Landscape with Plantation House, dated 1655, 
was painted more than ten years after Frans Post 
returned to the Netherlands in 1644, settling in his 
native city, Haarlem. He had spent seven and a half years in 
Brazil, where he had gone to record the landscape and 
colonial buildings for Johan Maurits (1604-1679), count of 
Nassau-Siegen, and from 1636 to 1644 the governor of 
Pernambuco, the Dutch colony in northern Brazil. Also in 
the governor's entourage were the painter Albert Eckhout 
(ca. 1610-1666), who was to record the flora and fauna as 
well as the people of Brazil, and two scientists, the astrono¬ 
mer, cartographer, and naturalist Georg Marcgraf 
(1610-1648) and Maurits's personal physician, Willem Piso 
(1611-1678), who was to study the plants and medicines of 
the region.^ 

Returning to The Hague in the same year as Post, 
Johan Maurits brought with him a large collection of rarities 
as well as eighteen landscapes by Post and paintings by 
Eckhout—still lifes and life-size paintings of people repre¬ 
senting the different ethnic races, including a large painting 
of native dancers. 2 He installed the rarities “for the benefit 
of the learned” in the marble entrance of the Mauritshuis, 
his newly constructed magnificent palace in The Hague, 
designed by Jacob van Campen (1596-1657) and Frans Post's 
brother Pieter Post (1608-1669). 3 The intended placement 
of the paintings by Post and Eckhout is unknown. 4 
Guillaume de Lamberty, who was a witness to the fire that 
destroyed the interior of the house in 1704, mourned the 
destruction of the murals with exotic Brazilian motifs that 
decorated the ground-floor walls and double staircase and 
may have been painted by Eckhout, who remained in the 
prince's service until i653. a 

The paintings and rarities, as well as the real native 
dancers whom Johan Maurits brought back, celebrated the 
Dutch colony and touted the accomplishments of its for¬ 
mer governor; they also whetted the European appetite for 
the exotic cultures of faraway lands. Post's first commission 
in the Netherlands was from the stadholder Frederik 
Hendrik (1584-1647), who on 29 May 1644 paid eight hun¬ 
dred florins for a large painting. View of the West Indies (lost). 6 

Although only a few people had entree to the 
Mauritshuis, diplomatic gifts, including those in 1654 to 
Frederick III, king of Denmark and Norway, and in 1679 to 
Louis XIV of France, extended the fame of Post and Eckhout 
and increased curiosity about Brazil. 7 The publication 
by Caspar Barlaeus (1584-1648) of Rerum per Octennium in 
Brasilia (Amsterdam, 1647) with thirty-three etchings after 
drawings by Post, followed by Historia Naturalis Brasiliae... 
(Leiden, 1648) by Piso and Marcgraf, with illustrations based 
on their natural history drawings, as well as works by Post 
and Eckhout, expanded the market for Post's landscapes 
beyond Johan Maurits's personal and political circle. 

In Haarlem, where Post joined the painters' guild in 1646, 

the artist employed what must have been an extensive 
repertoire of careful drawings to produce the provocative 
and increasingly decorative images of Brazil that appealed 
to his European audience. 

Brazilian Landscape with Plantation House is typical of the 
pictures Post painted in the Netherlands during the first 
half of the 1650s. Painted in tones of reddish-brown and 
beige on a wood panel, the composition is divided between 
a panorama on the right, where the landscape stretches 
across flat river marshes (varzea) into the distance, and a close- 
up view of a two-story house. 8 Behind the house a grove 
of tropical trees individually defined as different species is 
silhouetted against the blue sky, which is animated by 
only a few tufts of clouds. The open foreground, unfettered 
by framing devices, and the relatively low horizon create 
a sense of intimacy with the house and with the figures on 
the right, who appear to be a natural part of the landscape. 9 
Painting with the precision of a draftsman and the eye of 
a naturalist. Post describes the delicate details that define 
the individual birds and textures of the foliage. 

Post, who had been commissioned by Johan Maurits 
to document the colony's landscape with its forts and 
buildings, carefully described the house in a way that sug¬ 
gests it was a specific structure he had seen in Brazil, similar 
to the one included in the distance of one of the drawings 
of Fort Prince Willem that he had prepared for Barlaeus's 
book (fig. 23.1). 10 The second-story balcony would have pro¬ 
vided views of the sugarcane plantations and flat landscape. 11 
A similar house appears in the closely related painting 
Plantation House (private collection, Rio de Janeiro). 12 How¬ 
ever, in that painting, as well as in other contemporary 
paintings, the house is more substantial and apparently well 
maintained. By comparison, the house in the Carter paint¬ 
ing is poorly constructed and dilapidated. Both the porch 
and the roof, supported by flimsy poles, sag under their own 
weight. The four-sided red rush roof and wattle-and-daub 
walls of the second floor, supported by a stone foundation, 
suggest that it was built by the Portuguese, apparently 
on the ruins of another building. 13 Post often included ruins 
of Portuguese buildings in his later works, but they are 
unusual in his paintings of the 1650s. 

Brazilian Landscape with Plantation House reflects both 
the reality of the Dutch colony and an idyllic fantasy. 
Motivated by the potential profits to be derived from the 
cultivation of sugar, the Dutch West India Company, 
established in 1621, took control of northeast Brazil in 1630, 
when they captured Recife from the Portuguese, who had 
arrived in 1500. The area remained under Dutch control 
until 1654, when the Portuguese retook it. Although 
undoubtedly biased, Barlaeus described the governorship 
of Johan Maurits as having endeavored to be fair to 
everyone. Under the Dutch, there was religious freedom, 
and Portuguese-Brazilians, Sephardic Jews, and Dutchmen 


Post, Brazilian Landscape with Plantation House 

reportedly lived together in relative harmony. 14 Portuguese 
colonists who accepted Dutch rule were allowed to remain 
on their land with complete control of their property. 11 
The sugar plantations, which thus continued to be run by 
Portuguese or mazombos (the Brazilian offspring of 
Portuguese immigrants), 16 relied heavily on slaves for their 
workforce. To meet the demand, the West India Company, 
which also controlled the west coast of Africa, transported 
great numbers of slaves from Angola and Guinea to work on 
the sugar plantations in Brazil. In 1630 the number of slaves 
in Pernambuco alone is estimated to have been 40,000. 
Between 1630 and 1651 the Dutch imported an additional 
26,286 slaves from Africa. 1 

The man in the black hat, jacket, and breeches is pro¬ 
bably the owner of the sugar mill ( senhorde engenho ) who 
has come to speak with the farm manager ( lavradorde cana), 
to whom the house belongs. 18 On the road past the house 
a group of African slaves have set down their baskets of 
produce and rest along the side of the road or dance to the 
beat of an atabaque. The four lighter-skinned figures 
walking down the road into the distance represent indige¬ 
nous people. 19 The men wear shirts and drawers of 
white fabric, probably cotton or linen, and the women white 
smocks that contemporaries reported were to cover their 
private parts “more than for any other use.” 20 

The image differs from what Europeans knew from 
sixteenth-century maps and prints, which represent 
forests with naked warriors surrounded by exotic animals. 
Largely based on the early images published by Theodor 
de Bry (1528-1598), certain indigenous Brazilians were 
portrayed as cannibals, an image that Post himself portrayed 
in an illustration of a Tapuya cooking human remains for 

Barlaeus’s book and that Eckhout repeated in his full-scale 
ethnographic portrait of a Tapuya woman standing against 
a plantation landscape clutching a severed hand and with 
a severed foot in her basket (fig. 23.2).® 

Similarly, in contrast to Eckhout’s portraits of an 
African man and woman, which emphasize their strength 
and fertility as well as their origins. Post’s slaves are dressed 
as colonials who belong to the plantation rather than to 
Africa. The women wear long white skirts and blouses with 
full sleeves over which they wear a kind of vest. The men 
are bare-chested and wear short wraparound skirts of simi¬ 
lar white cloth. White bands of cotton tied around the heads 
of both the men and the women kept the sweat generated 
by the hot, humid climate off their faces. There is nothing in 
the appearance or demeanor of the slaves to suggest the 
harsh conditions under which they are known to have lived 
and worked. 22 Their relaxed, joyous behavior—like that of 
the dancing peasants in David Teniers’s (1610-1690) con¬ 
temporary paintings (Staatliche Kunsthalle, Karlsruhe, inv. 
no. 2700) —reflects the European view of the idyllic life 
of “natural” people.^ 

Brazilian Landscape with Plantation House is one of Post’s 
first paintings to introduce the motif of slaves dancing, 
a theme that he would include often in later works. Like 
the addition of tropical animals, trees, and plants, the happy 
slaves added an element of exoticism that was meant 
to appeal to the curiosity of his patrons and encourage con¬ 
tinuing support of the Brazilian colony, which the Dutch 
had lost to the Portuguese in 1654. The increasing prolifera¬ 
tion of exotic details in Post’s later paintings, such as 
View of Olinda, dated 1662 (Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv. 
no. SK-A-742), attests to their decorative appeal. 1 * 


Post, Brazilian Landscape with Plantation House 

Fig. 23.1 Frans Post, FortPrins Willem (detail), 1645. 
Pen and brown ink with brush and gray wash; some 
black chalk underdrawings on paper, 12% x 20 ks in. 
(32.5 x 51 cm). The British Museum, London, 
bequeathed by Sir Hans Sloane, transferred from the 
British Library (inv. no. 1928,0310.90.17) 

Fig. 23.2 Albert Eckhout (ca. 1610-1666), Tapuya 
Woman with a Severed Hand and Foot, 1641. Oil on canvas, 
107 Vs x 65 in. (272 x 165 cm). The National Museum 
of Denmark (inv. no. N38A2) 

Fig. 23.2 


Post, Brazilian Landscape with Plantation House 



Fig. TR23.1 Infrared reflectogram 

Fig. TR23.2 A few areas in which underdrawing was 

The panel is about 14 inch thick and 
composed of two boards. The tight join 
is located 8% inches from the top of the 
panel. The back of the panel, which 
is beveled and stained or thinly painted 
brown, appears worn. A horizontal 
crack runs through the upper board of 
the panel about 3 Vz inches from the top. 
The crack has been reinforced on the 
reverse with a strip of fine, plain-weave 
fabric (2 Vz inches wide), which appears 
to be very old and carries an inscription. 
All four sides of the panel have been 
extended with 14 -inch-wide strips of 
wood attached with nails. The paint 
on these later additions approximately 
matches the colors of the picture. 

There appears to be a single, thin, 
cream-colored ground on the panel. The 
painting was difficult to see in the 
unmodified infrared reflectogram (IRR) 
because of the high infrared reflectivity 
of the calcium-carbonate ground. 
Luckily, the upper paint layers of the 
landscape were very transparent in 
infrared, and, once the contrast and 
brightness of the IRR were adjusted, 
the underdrawing became more visible 
(fig- TR23.1). 

The powdery appearance of the dark 
underdrawing suggests it was done 
with a dry drawing material containing 
carbon black, probably black chalk or 
charcoal. A strong horizontal line in the 
underdrawing marks the horizon on 
the right and continues through the 
house to the left side. Similar lines were 
found throughout the composition: 
in the house, in some of the figures, and 
in parts of the vegetation around the 

house (fig. TR23.2). Areas of dark shadow 
in the IRR suggest the roof might have 
been higher and the house farther to the 
left side. 

Paints range in color from translucent 
dark to opaque light. They are generally 
thinly applied with some slightly 
thicker application used for the archi¬ 
tecture and tree leaves. The artist 
applied a thin blue color (containing 
mostly smalt and lead white) for the sky 
(fig. TR23.3), leaving reserves for the 
trees and house. Post laid in the foliage 
of the trees with translucent, dark 
brown paint that he subsequently built 
up with predominantly copper-based 
pigments. Although the trunks and 
tops of the central coconut trees had 


Post, Brazilian Landscape with Plantation House 

Fig. TR23.3 Digital microphotograph (175X 
magnification) of the thin blue layer for the sky, 
which contains mainly smalt (blue particles) 
and lead white pigments 

Fig. TR23.4 Detail of figures at lower right. The 
landscape colors and brushstrokes are obviously 
seen through the figure seated nearest the house. 

reserves, the ends of the fronds were 
layered over the paint of the sky. Some 
of the edges of the architecture were 
also painted over already painted sky 
and landscape. 

In the foreground. Post applied the 
light brown earth color, leaving reserves 
for the plants and the building. Paint 
for the bare earth contains iron-based 
pigments, carbon black, lead white, 
and calcium white. The green, grassy 
areas were painted in the reserves. 
Where the green abuts the bare earth 
there is a warm, translucent, honey- 
colored layer that may be discolored 
copper resinate. The staffage was 
painted over the landscape. The colors 
and texture of the plants and the earth 
show through the figure seated nearest 
the house (fig. TR23.4). 

For the roof of the building. Post 
applied a layer of terracotta-colored 
paint that contains ochers and lead- 
white pigments. Light yellow and dark 

gray paint delineate the tiles. The roof 
was painted over some foliage of the 
trees. The dark mauve paint of the 
signature was applied on the dry paint 
of the rock. The script is abraded but 
readable except for the last digit. 

There is a fine craquelure throughout 
the paint layers. The surface of the 
painting has some general abrasion. 
Ultraviolet light shows a restrained 
amount of toning in the sky that is 
under the varnish, and it also reveals 
restorations along the horizontal crack 
at the top of the picture. In addition, 
there are some restorations in the large 
bush at the right side, and some of the 
figures have been lightly reinforced. 
The medium-thick varnish appears 
fairly old; grayed and yellowed, it 
fluoresces greenish-yellow in ultra¬ 
violet light. 


Post, Brazilian Landscape with Plantation House 





Adam Pynacker 

(1620/22-1673) 1 

View of a Harbor in Schiedam , ca. 1650 
Oil on canvas, 21% x 17% in. 
(55.2x45.4 cm) 

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter 


L ocated just to the west of Rotterdam, where the River 
Schie meets the Nieuwe Maas, Schiedam was an 
important river port in the seventeenth century. It 
later gained fame as the center of gin production. In View 
of a Harbor in Schiedam, Adam Pynacker, a native of the city, 
represents the wooden drawbridge that crossed the Koorte 
Haven where it meets the larger Lange Haven. 2 Today, 
the bridge has been replaced, but the location remains recog¬ 
nizable when viewed from the Koorte Haven east toward 
the Lange Haven. In the background of the painting, 
a merchant ship, its sails drying in the sun, is docked along 
the Lange Haven. 3 To the left of the bridge, a man reads 
from a sheet of paper to a small crowd of children and adults, 
perhaps announcing the contents of the ship or the news 
of the day. In the foreground a boatman leans over the mid¬ 
section of a rowboat beached in the shallows on the edge of 
the Koorte Haven and points in the opposite direction while 
addressing a man in regent's attire with a glove in his right 
hand. The gentleman stands at the bow of the large rowboat 
typical of those that were standard equipment carried by 
merchant vessels. The large kedge anchor and heavy rope in 
the stern would have been used to assist a ship to maneuver 
in the port. 1 

A sense of quiet tranquillity pervades the painting. 
Rendered with a limited palette of warm shades of brown 
and ocher and contre-jour light effects, the painting evokes 
the impression of morning, when the rising sun casts long 
shadows. 5 The light silhouettes the figures in the crowd 
against the brightly lit ground, while picking out details of 
the boat and people in the foreground and casting the 
subtle reflection of the stern of the rowboat in the still water. 
The sparkling highlights of the broken branches in the 
immediate foreground anticipate the broken tree trunks 
that introduce many of Pynacker's mature paintings. See, 
for example, his Boatmen Moored on the Shore of an Italian Lake, 
about 1665 (Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv. no. SK-A-321). 

The parallel placement of the rowboat, bridge, and 
ship marks the recession into depth within the picture 
without any clear transition. Even the figures in the crowd 
who appear to stand close to each other are rendered in 
different scales, and the tiny figure of a man crossing the 
bridge is too large for the ship he is leaving but far too small 
for the crowd he is approaching. Several authors have noted 
that the unsettling jumps in scale and perspective within 
the painting are characteristic of Pynacker's early composi¬ 
tions and thus suggestive of a date about 1650 to 1653. 6 His 
struggle with the general composition is evident in the 

infrared image of the painting, which reveals that he had 
originally placed a larger boat in the foreground pointing 
toward the opening of the bridge (see Technical Report). After 
partially painting it, he removed the boat and repainted 
the foreground, introducing a smaller boat oriented 
perpendicular to the original vessel and added the figures. 

View of a Harbor in Schiedam is the only painting of 
a Dutch scene and the only painting of an urban setting 
known by Pynacker, who is famed for his views of foreign 
ports and river scenes bathed in southern light with 
contrasts of dark shadows with sparkling highlights (fig. 
24.1). The subject of transport and the contre-jour lighting 
effects, however, closely relate the view of Schiedam to 
the artist's other paintings, in which the influence of the 
Italianate painters, especially the works of Jan Both (see cat. 
no. 5), was significant. Pynacker's paintings of riverboats 
laden with cargo in the proximity of Italian architecture 
suggest that he was in Italy, possibly between 1646 and 1649. 
However, he could also easily have adopted the charac¬ 
teristic warm southern light and images of foreign ports 
from the numerous Italianate paintings and prints that 
were available in the Netherlands by the 1640s. His original 
conception of the boat in the Carter painting, for example, 
closely resembles Both's etching Landscape with Bridge, the 
PonteMolle (Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, on loan from the 
Rijksakademie van Beeldende Kunsten, inv. no. 

View of a Harbor in Schiedam is one of the earliest of what 
became a separate genre of seventeenth-century Dutch paint¬ 
ing, the cityscape. Originally limited primarily to prints, 
following the signing of the peace with Spain in 1648, the 
depiction of recognizable buildings and historic monuments, 
often in imaginary settings, became a popular subject 
for paintings. The collecting of cityscapes was undoubtedly 
often motivated by civic pride, but there also appears to 
have been a market for them among tourists visiting the 
city. Cosimo de' Medici, for example, purchased a painting 
of the much acclaimed newly erected Town Hall from Jan 
van der Heyden (1637-1712) during his visit to Amsterdam 
in 1668/ The incidental view in Pynacker's painting, how¬ 
ever, distinguishes it from typical views of cities and towns, 
which focus on real or imaginary landmarks. Topograph¬ 
ically accurate views of minor locations within cities appear 
in prints, such as Reinier (Nooms) Zeeman's Various Views 
of Amsterdam, about 1650-51, but rarely in paintings. The com¬ 
position and topographical accuracy of Pynacker's portrayal 
of the physical appearance and activity of the Schiedam port 


Pynacker, View of a Harbor in Schiedam 

recall Zeeman's 1641 engraving DeEenhornsluis (Rijksmuseum, 
Amsterdam, inv. no. RP-P-OB-12.998), which represents tall 
ships on the opposite side of a drawbridge. 

While Pynacker's painting may reflect his pride in the 
Schiedam port, the prominence of the gentleman stand¬ 
ing next to the bow of the boat suggests that the painting 
may celebrate the man rather than the city. Dressed as 
a contemporary regent with flowing dark hair, black breeches, 
and beaver hat, the gentleman stands in the sunlight 
against the backdrop of a building next to which a large ship 
laden with cargo lies in port. Unlike figures in Pynacker's 
other paintings, he is isolated and not directly involved in 
an activity other than responding to the boatman. 

The juxtaposition of the figure of the regent and the 
ship and the building on the far side of the canal, where 
the Lange and Koorte Havens meet, may be significant. The 
view looking east along the Koorte Haven was probably 
made from the rear of the property owned by Pynacker's 
father, the second lot to the north on the Lange Haven. 8 The 
gentleman, who is too young to be the artist's father (1579/ 
82-1660), looks similar in appearance to Pynacker himself 
as he appears with long hair and a mustache in a portrait 
painted by his father-in-law, Wybrand de Geest (ca. 1592- 
1661), in 1660 (fig. 24.2). 9 It is possible, therefore, that 
the figure could be the artist who, like his father, was also 
a wine merchant and shipowner. 10 

The similarity of the appearance of the gentleman 
to Pynacker may, however, be coincidental. The sign on the 
corner of the building represents a man in red trousers 
standing on the back of a whale, probably a reference to the 
story of Jonah and the whale and possibly to the whaling 
industry, in which many in the city were involved. No record 
of a business that can be associated with the sign has been 
identified, however. According to J. M. M. Jansen, archivist 
at the Gemeentearchief, Schiedam, the building on the 
southwest corner of the meeting of the canals was owned 
from 1638 to 1649 by Jan Willemsz. de Wijs, a member of the 
city council, alderman, and burgomaster. 11 In 1649 De Wijs 
sold the property to Vranck Hubrechtsz. van Dorp, a glazier 
( glazenmaker ) who owned the property until 1655. In that 
year, the property was bought by another glazier, Jan Jansz. 
Braem. 12 Although there is no evidence other than the 
similarity of the name, the reference to Jonah could refer to 
the Schiedam bailiff Jonas Pietersz. Jonassen (1622-1667). 
Like Pynacker, and approximately the same age, Jonassen 
was a landscape painter who had traveled to Italy, possibly 
with Pynacker. In 1650, when the Carter painting was 
probably painted, Jonassen would have been approximately 
twenty-eight to thirty years old, the apparent age of the 
man portrayed in the painting. 13 Without documentation, 
however, the identity of the regent remains a mystery. 


Pynacker, View of a Harbor in Schiedam 

Fig. 24.1 

Fig. 24.2 

Fig. 24.1 Adam Pynacker, Schippers met hun boten aan 
de oevervan een Italiaans meer (Boatmen Moored on the 
Shore of an Italian Lake), 1650-70. Oil on canvas on 
panel, 38.4 x 33.7 in. (97.5 x 85.5 cm). Rijksmuseum, 
Amsterdam (inv. no. SK-A-321) 

Fig. 24.2 Wybrand de Geest (ca. 1592-1661), Portrait 
of Adam Pynacker, 1660. Oil on panel, 28 14 x 22 Vs in. 
(72 x 56.5 cm). Fries Museum, Leeuwarden, 
loan from the Ottema-Kingma Stichting (inv. no. 


Pynacker, View of a Harbor in Schiedam 



Fig. TR24.1 X-radiograph shows original canvas 
wrapping over stretcher, cusping, and the reserves 
for the buildings and the bridge. Vertical losses 
through the center, which appear dark in the 
X-radiograph, may have been caused by water 
dripping down the painting. 

Fig. TR24.2 Infrared reflectogram 

The medium-weight, plain-weave fabric 
is lined to coarser plain-weave fabric, 
probably with an aqueous adhesive; 
tape covers the edges. The X-radiograph 
shows some original canvas and the 
tacking margins, which are now tat¬ 
tered, wrapping over the stretcher. The 
X-radiograph reveals cusping along 
the perimeter (fig. TR24.1). 

The canvas has a cream-colored, 
medium-thick ground that almost fills 
the canvas weave. The ground is visible 
on the right side of the picture where 
the sky and buildings meet. Infrared 
reflectography (IRR) revealed a consider¬ 
able amount of underdrawing and 
a significant pentimento (fig. TR24.2). 
Most of the underdrawing was found in 
the bridge and consists of thin, straight 
lines done with a drafting tool, such 
as a straightedge. The even width and 
darkness of the lines suggest that the 
artist used a pen, pencil, or metalpoint. 

The underdrawn lines do not always 
coincide with the painted bridge. The 
ropes, for instance, were originally 
angled rather than vertical; the middle 
diagonal beam was positioned farther 
to the right; some of the horizontal 
beams were also in different positions; 
and both of the upright supports seem 
to have been underdrawn farther to 
the left. Similar fine, sharp lines were 
also found in some of the figures on the 
left side of the painting by the bridge. 

The most significant discovery revealed 
in IRR was the pentimento of a large 
boat with its bow set at what are now 
the abutments of the bridge. This boat 
appears to have been both underdrawn 
with fine lines (similar to the bridge) 
and then loosely developed a little 
further with a brush and a medium 
containing carbon black (fig. TR24.3). 
Pynacker covered up this earlier boat by 
painting the two men and the smaller 
rowboat on top of it. Dark shapes in the 
center of the original boat may be cargo 
or perhaps even figures. 

IRR also revealed some adjustments to 
the top of the building on the right, 
which initially had a higher roofline, as 
well as adjustments to the rooflines of 
the buildings on the opposite side of the 
canal, in the left center of the painting. 
The shape of the hat of the man to 
the right was also changed; the hat was 
originally more rounded. 

Paints range from opaque, light colors 
to thin, translucent darks. Pynacker 
applied medium-thick light blue paint 
on the ground for the sky, leaving 
reserves for the buildings and the 
bridge. He painted the dark blue paint 
of the clouds into the still-wet light 
blue layer. The blue pigment in these 
paints is smalt. Over the blue layer, the 
artist applied warm colors to produce 
the glow in the sky. 


Pynacker, View of a Harbor in Schiedam 

Fig. TR24.3 Pentimento of the large boat in IRR 
indicated with red lines 

Most of the cityscape was painted 
directly on the ground. The buildings 
were laid in with thin gray-blue paint, 
and the sails in front of the buildings 
were laid in on the ground with a thin 
red paint abutting the gray-blue layer 
of the buildings. The gray-blue layer 
was worked up with a reddish color and 
the sails with local color. The red layer 
beneath the sails transmits through the 
thin local color on top of it. The small 
yellow sail on the left edge of the paint¬ 
ing was, however, directly worked up 
on the ground. In the right part of the 
painting, flags, sails, and rigging were 
painted over the light blue of the sky. 
The artist adjusted the sky over the 
buildings and the buildings over the sky, 
and the foreground landscape was laid 
in with a warmish red color that was 
then built up to give form and details. 
The scene was largely completed before 
the artist painted the figures. His 
initials, AP, reportedly on the bridge 
abutment at center left, could not 
be found. 

The painting reads well and is in rather 
good condition, even though there are 
a few condition issues. In the sky a 
medium crackle pattern with numerous 
curving and circular cracks has had a 
tendency to lift. In the middle, a vertical 
strip about one-third the width of the 
painting has numerous small vertical 
losses from flaking, perhaps induced by 
water dripping down the painting. 
There is some restoration in the flags, 
sails, and rigging and in the clouds. The 
thin glazes that give the sky a warm 
glow are somewhat abraded and have 
been compensated with toning. There 
appears to be a later warm tone or 
pigmented varnish layer over much of 
the sky, which collected in the cracks. 


Pynacker, View of a Harbor in Schiedam 





Jacob Isaacksz. 
van Ruisdael 


Nicolaes Pietersz. 


The Great Oak, 1652 

Oil on canvas, 33 14 x 41 Va in. 

(84.5 x 104.8 cm) 

Signed and dated lower right: JVRuisdael 1652 

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter in honor 

of the museum’s 25th anniversary 



T he appearance of The Great Oak, on an easel in the 
lower left of Interior of a Picture Gallery Showing 
the Collection of Cardinal Silvio Valenti Gonzaga (fig. 

25.1), a monumental painting dated 1749 by the Italian artist 
Giovanni Paolo Panini (1691-1765), is the earliest record 
of a painting by Jacob van Ruisdael in an Italian collection. 1 
Van Ruisdael's name was not, however, associated with the 
painting until the early nineteenth century. The posthu¬ 
mous inventory of the cardinal's collection compiled in 
1756-63, as well as the subsequent sale of the collection in 
Amsterdam in May 1763, records the Carter painting as 
a work by Nicolaes Berchem, who was better known and 
appreciated than Van Ruisdael during the eighteenth 
century. 2 The sale catalogues in 1809 and 1834 were the first 
to identify Van Ruisdael as the painter of the landscape 
with figures by Berchem. In 1835 John Smith, followed by 
Cornelis Hofstede de Groot and Jacob Rosenberg, noted that 
the painting is signed by both artists. Although today only 
Van Ruisdael's signature is visible. The Great Oak is recog¬ 
nized as a collaborative work by Van Ruisdael and his friend 
and traveling companion Berchem, painted in 1652, shortly 
after they returned from travels together near the Dutch- 
German border. 1 

Van Ruisdael's depiction of two roads emerging from 
the forest and meeting in the foreground recalls the dense 
forest landscapes of Gillis van Coninxloo (1544-1607) 
and David Vinckboons (1576-ca. 1629), Flemish refugees 
who settled in Amsterdam in the 1590s. In Van Ruisdael's 
hands, however, the forest breaks open and secondary trees 
are reduced in stature, highlighting the massive oak tree. 

Its upper branches blasted by the weather, the tree tena¬ 
ciously clings by its roots to the sand, which appears like 
a scar in the scrub-covered dune. Strong light accentuates 
the wedge-shaped area of sand at the base of the tree 
and draws attention to the foreground, where the two roads 
converge. Patches of light animate the landscape, illuminat¬ 
ing important details and leading the eye through the 
trees into the distance, where, on the left, the flat landscape 
stretches across open meadows. 

Infrared reflectography suggests that Van Ruisdael 
originally planned to animate the landscape with his 
own figures: a man wearing a broad-brimmed hat and carry¬ 
ing a walking stick over his left shoulder lies beneath the 
figure of the rider (see Technical Report). His posture and 
open stride show that he is walking on the road toward 
the distance, where a smaller figure is still visible in the final 
painting. Similar to the staffage painted by Van Ruisdael 
in View of Grainfields with a Distant Town (see cat. no. 26), here 
his original figures are absorbed by the landscape, whereas 
those painted by Berchem play a prominent role both com- 
positionally and thematically. The way in which Berchem's 
figures are strategically placed to indicate movement 
through the landscape points to the influence of Jan Both 

(see cat. no. 5), whose landscapes had a major impact on 
Dutch artists after he returned from Italy in 1642. Cast in 
strong light and defined with quick brushstrokes that 
capture the effect of shifting light and movement, Berchem's 
figures appear to move forward to the point where, literally, 
their paths will cross. The shadows cast by the figures are 
inconsistent with those of the trees, indicating that Berchem 
added the figures after Van Ruisdael had completed his work. 

The Great Oak is one of Van Ruisdael's most successful 
treatment of compositions in which he exalts and monu¬ 
mentalizes trees. He first experimented with the basic 
format in the 1640s. The Carter painting is in many ways 
anticipated by his etching The Three Oaks, dated 1649 (Rijks- 
museum, Amsterdam, inv. no. RP-P-OB-4866), in which 
three trees stand together on a dune silhouetted against 
the sky, dwarfing the wooded area in the left distance. Van 
Ruisdael's fascination with the picturesque qualities of 
twisted and gnarled trees, such as his closely related etch¬ 
ing The Great Beech (Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv. no. 
RP-P-OB-4861), was probably inspired by Van Coninxloo 
and especially Roelandt Savery (1576-1639), but his individ¬ 
ualized definition of specific specimens—the rich varied 
coloring and layering of the foliage—and their monumen- 
tality set him apart. 1 

Scholars have generally related Van Ruisdael's fasci¬ 
nation with the heroic, and especially the blasted tree, 
to the mutability of nature and its association with the tran¬ 
sience of human life. 5 In discussing The Great Oak, previous 
authors have posited, furthermore, that the prominent 
position of bones at the intersection of the two roads is 
a reminder of the transience of earthly life and “a reference 
to the destination to which all roads ultimately lead, death.'' 6 
Van Ruisdael and Berchem, they suggest, may have been 
alluding to the two different paths of life, rural and urban, 
peasant and gentry, and intended the travelers to be under¬ 
stood in terms of the medieval concept of the pilgrimage 
of life. 7 

Rather than an allegorical reference to transience and 
vanitas, however. Van Ruisdael's depiction of the weathered 
oak clinging to the earth may have been inspired by a more 
positive, and personal, reference. Raised in Haarlem, he 
would have been keenly aware of the civic remembrance of 
the destruction of the beloved Haarlem Woods during 
the siege by Spanish troops in 1572-73, which prompted the 
redesign of the city's coat of arms. Following the siege, 
the city replaced the flourishing oak tree at the center of 
its crest with a bare tree and added the motto “Vicit vim 
virtus''—Virtue conquers power—a reference to the virtue, 
diligence, and industry that allowed Haarlem to survive the 
disasters of war and eventually to prosper. The introductory 
poem to Harlemias, the history of the city of Haarlem 
published in 1647-48 at the end of the Eighty Years' War by 
Theodor Schrevelius (1572-1649), the rector of the local 


Van Ruisdael and Berchem, The Great Oak 

Latin School, testifies to the lingering association. Schrevelius 
compares the strength of the citizens of Haarlem, who 
had grown steadfast through suffering, to the bare tree, 
which, through resisting the storms in the open field, 
had developed a stronger root system so as to be more firmly 
established in the earth. 8 Thus, without being read as an 
allegory, the heroic tree, like the ruins of Bredero and Kleef, 
may have alluded to the history not only of Haarlem but 
also of the Netherlands, which triumphed over the Spanish 
through virtue and tenacity. 

In the context of the historical significance of the 
heroic oak, the activity and identity of the different figures 
portrayed by Berchem, undoubtedly in discussion with 
Van Ruisdael, should be reconsidered. The elegant rider, 
a rifle and pistol strapped to his saddle, his dog on the road 
ahead of him, is a hunter who has encountered the travelers 
along the road. Hunting was considered a peacetime activ¬ 
ity that prepared men for war. The man to whom the hunter 
speaks is a ragtag soldier, one of the many mercenaries 
who were left far from home after the end of the war in 1648. 
Carrying his bedroll under his arm, he has a sword and 
helmet that suggest he may have been an officer, or, perhaps 
more likely, he acquired the items as souvenirs. The second 
man walking through the water wears a floppy hat and 
carries a pack, as does the man with the bright red jacket 
resting in the foreground, indicating that they, too, 
are traveling. The dress and bare feet of the shepherds who 
suddenly encounter the travelers show them not to be 
Dutch. Rather, they resemble the peasants that Berchem 
typically portrayed in his Italianate landscapes. The position 

of the sheep and the shepherdess's pointing gesture indi¬ 
cate their intention to make a turn around the tree and 
follow the road from which the travelers have just come. 
The startled gesture of the shepherd, who grabs his pole, 
reveals that they fear the travelers, who could be, as they 
often were, dangerous highwaymen, displaced people and 
robbers who wandered the countryside following the 
cessation of the Eighty Years' War in 1648. The meeting of 
the idyllic world of the arcadian shepherds and that of 
the former soldiers released from duty beneath the blasted 
oak tree could thus be considered a statement of resilience 
and survival, the end of war, and the arrival, or hope, 
of peace. Peace, however, was to be elusive. The date of the 
painting, 1652, marked the start of the First Anglo-Dutch 
War, a war fought by sea. 

Compositionally, The Great Oak anticipates the loose, 
decorative paintings from the early 1660s of Van Ruisdael 
and his follower Meindert Hobbema (see cat. nos. 15,16). Van 
Ruisdael's Wooded Landscape with a Pool from the mid-i6sos 
(Norton Simon Museum, Pasadena, inv. no. M.1969.33.P) 
already shows the direction in which he was moving: viewed 
from a greater distance, the major tree group is diminished 
in scale, and the secondary group of trees pushed into 
the left distance provides a broader opening through which 
a flock of sheep passes along a deeply rutted road toward 
the foreground. Typical of his later paintings, and those by 
Hobbema, the light in the Pasadena painting breaks 
through the open, feathery foliage of the trees to produce 
a more decorative effect than in The Great Oak, which tri¬ 
umphs because of its strong compositional structure and 
dramatic lighting. 


Van Ruisdael and Berchem, The Great Oak 

Fig. 25.1 

Fig. 25.1 Giovanni Paolo Panini (Italy, 1691-1765), 
Interior of a Picture Gallery Showing the Collection of 
Cardinal Silvio Valenti Gonzaga, 1749. Oil on canvas, 

78 x 105 Vz in. (198.2 x 268 cm). Wadsworth Atheneum 
Museum of Art, Hartford, The Ella Gallup Sumner 
and Mary Catlin Sumner Collection Fund (inv. no. 


Van Ruisdael and Berchem, The Great Oak 



Fig. TR25.1 X-radiograph showing the original 
dimensions and stitching, both marked, and 

The support is a plain-weave, medium- 
weight fabric lined with an aqueous 
adhesive to a similar type fabric. Origi¬ 
nal tacking margins no longer exist. 
Along the perimeter of the painting 
there are a number of minor losses 
of fabric and paint, and about Vz inch of 
each of the lower corners is missing. 

The X-radiograph provided some useful 
information about the supports (fig. 
TR25.1). First, the current stretcher is 
about Va inch larger than the painting 
on each side. Some of the lining can¬ 
vas that extends along the perimeter of 
the painting is filled and painted. 
Second, there are scallops on the sides of 
the original support. Finally, slanted 
stitching runs along the top and bot¬ 
tom edges of the original support, 
which was perhaps intended to mend 
weakened margins. 

The canvas has a light pink ground. 
Infrared reflectography (IRR) revealed 
no underdrawing; however, a penti- 
mento of a male figure under the central 
horseman was found (fig. TR25.2). The 
figure appears to be both underdrawn 
and painted. The figure is stylistically 

similar to a man with a staff that Van 
Ruisdael painted in View of Grainfields 
with a Distant Town (cat. no. 26), only 
here the figure is reversed. The more 
articulated figures of the shepherds on 
the right by Nicolaes Berchem were 
painted directly over the completed 
landscape. The IRR shows a curving 
trail of bushes that were already in place 
before Berchem painted the shepherds 
on top. 

Paints range from the thick and pasty 
light colors of the clouds to thin, 
transparent greens and browns in the 
landscape. Van Ruisdael apparently 
indicated the landscape with thin dark 
paint and then painted the sky around 
it. The paint for the distant hills on 
the left contains azurite, among other 
pigments, and it was applied with 
horizontal brushstrokes. The pond was 
laid in with a light cool gray that was 
glazed with various colors. He laid 
in the trunks and limbs of many of the 
trees with dark brown paint and then 
painted the bark with light gray 
and brown tones. In IRR, the light gray 
highlights of the trees appear very black, 
indicating the presence of carbon black. 
The trunk of the great oak was laid 
in with a thin gray layer directly on the 

pink ground. Some greenery, for exam¬ 
ple the grass on the hill behind the 
two figures on the right, appears very 
dark in IRR—again because of the 
presence of carbon-black pigment. 

The paint of the foliage contains 
the pigments azurite, earth colors, and 
possibly some lead-tin yellow and 
copper resinate. The surface layers of 
the tree foliage are composed of indi¬ 
vidual strokes and dabs of thick paint. 
The X-radiograph reveals large daubs 
of dense paint applied within the trees 
to represent the bright sky showing 
through the foliage, which partially 
covers these marks. The bright green 
foliage of the trees in the background 
above the pond and in the middle 
ground on the right side contains lead- 
tin yellow pigment, which was also 
used in the bundled grain at the right. 1 

The clouds and the blue sky were painted 
next to each other over the pink ground. 
The opaque light blue paint of the sky 
is a single layer with open brushwork; 
a stiff brush left grooves in the paint. The 
clouds were energetically painted with 


Van Ruisdael and Berchem, The Great Oak 

Fig. TR25.2 Detail of pentimento under horseman: 
a man carrying a staff walks away from the viewer. 
The figure is similar to that in View of Grainfields with 
a Distant Town (cat. no. 26), only reversed. 

Fig. TR25.3 Digital micrograph (loox magnifica¬ 
tion) of the sky seen through the trees above the 
horizon, just left of center, showing the first layer of 
sky containing blue and white particles. A very thin, 
translucent layer of gray containing black and white 
particles is on top. 

large brushes. Some of the darker paints 
have texture from being built up with 
small brushes. 

The artist developed the clouds with 
white- to gray-colored paints. Glazes 
and scumbles, containing the pigments 
smalt (gray and bright blue in color), 
carbon black, and ocher create the 
optical grays that subtly add form. The 
gray cloud at the upper left was laid 
in with a gray layer containing gray 
smalt mixed with white and other pig¬ 
ments. The gray layer was then glazed 
and scumbled. The light gray sky 
seen through the trees beyond the road 
was similarly laid in with a layer of 
paint containing smalt and white pig¬ 
ments, then scumbled with gray paint, 
containing a mixture of mainly black 
and white pigments (fig. TR25.3). 

Berchem painted the figures on top of 
the painted landscape by first defining 
them with fine outlines in dark paint 
that show in IRR. 

The painting has a visible crackle pat¬ 
tern. On the left side above the center, 
several large arcs and circular cracks 

may have been caused by a blow to this 
area, which also has numerous small 
losses of paint. Along the perimeter of 
the painting there are faint stretcher 
marks about 1 Vz to 2 inches from 
the edges caused by a previous stretcher. 

The picture reads well, retains some 
surface texture, and preserves the rich, 
dark colors of the foliage. There is 
general abrasion to the surface, espe¬ 
cially affecting the thinner glazes or 
scumbles in the sky and the medium- 
rich colors of the foliage. The painted 
surface has some weave interference 
probably from the lining. 

The signature and date, painted with 
a very dark paint over the dried paint of 
the road, are in a good state with no 
reinforcement. However, there is some 
superficial abrasion, and the third digit 
of the date is difficult to read. 

Ultraviolet light showed an early var¬ 
nish, which fluoresces greenish-yellow 
(probably a natural resin), that was 
thinned in various areas of the land¬ 
scape and sky. Toning hides abrasions in 
the sky but also covers some original 
paint. Ultraviolet light showed some 


Van Ruisdael and Berchem, The Great Oak 

strengthening of the figures and sheep 
but little restoration in the trees and 

Robert Shepherd cleaned the painting 
in 1984. His report states that the 
painting had been recently lined and 
cleaned by someone who removed 
a great deal of overpaint from the sky, 
which, judging from earlier photo¬ 
graphs, had been done in the late 
eighteenth or early nineteenth century 
to give the picture a "brooding, roman¬ 
tic mood.” 2 Shepherd removed more 
of the old overpaint and all recent 
retouching. He varnished the painting 
with ketone resin to which he added 
microcrystalline wax. He found the sky 
"reasonably intact with some very early 
varnish.” In 2000 the varnish was 
thinned at LACMA to reduce discolor¬ 
ation and correct some discolored 
retouching. The painting was varnished 
with a natural resin varnish. 


1 DeCristofaro et al. 1982. 

2 Van Ruisdael object file. Department of Paintings 
Conservation, LACMA. 





Jacob Isaacksz. 
van Ruisdael 


View of Graillfields Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter 

with a Distant Town , 1 ca. 1670 M 20 ° 9 * 106 * 12 

Oil on canvas, 20 14 x 25 Vz in. 

(51.4x64.8 cm) 

Signed lower left: JVRuisdael 


A lone man with a pole over his shoulder walks in 
the shadows along the edge of a newly harvested 
field of grain as two dogs frolic nearby. In the 
distance a man stacks hay. The figures, which are absorbed 
by the landscape, are typical of those painted by Jacob van 
Ruisdael himself, in contrast to those by Nicolaes Berchem 
in The Great Oak (cat. no. 25). Here the major protagonist 
of the composition is not humanity but the sky, which occu¬ 
pies more than half of the canvas. The seemingly arbitrary 
distribution of light across the landscape suggests the 
movement of the large clouds rushing over the land. As in 
his contemporary views of the bleaching fields of Haarlem, 
however. Van Ruisdael uses light to select significant details, 
emphasizing the diagonal line of the simple wood foot¬ 
bridge in the foreground, the large yellow trapezoid of the 
unharvested field, and the stacked sheaves of grain. A softer 
light draws attention to the distant hill beyond the dark 
band of trees that cuts through the painting horizontally, 
diminishing on the far right, where the church tower of 
a distant town and adjacent meadows glow in the sunlight. 

View of Grainfields with a Distant Town is one of Van 
Ruisdael's most successful depictions of grainfields, a subject 
he painted at least twenty-five times during his career. 2 
Only three early grainfields from the late 1640s are dated. 3 
The Carter picture probably dates about 1670, at the end of 
a group of paintings that Seymour Slive places in the 1660s. 4 
In common with the Carter painting, these depictions 
of grainfields contrast the rough terrain of the foreground 
with sunlit fields of cultivated grain in the distance. 53 
In the much larger Wheat Fields, also from about 1670 (The 
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, inv. no. 14.40.623), 6 
the viewer is drawn into the landscape by a rutted road that 
stretches across the rugged foreground and leads back to 
the country house hidden in a grove of trees. Rolling fields 
of yellow grain flank the road. As in the Carter painting, 
billowing clouds echo the landscape, casting shadows across 
the land. 

The Carter painting, however, is more subtle and yet 
more clearly structured and unified than the Metropolitan's 
composition. Dramatic contrasts of light and shadow, 
solids and voids, near and far suggest both space and depth. 
Van Ruisdael juxtaposes the geometric shape of the uncut 
golden grain glowing in the sunlight and the rows of bound 
sheaves that form a strong diagonal leading into the 
distance. 7 Meanwhile, the man walking toward the left in the 
foreground creates a subtle counterbalance to the dominant 
diagonal and both anchors and expands the composition 
that seems to be just a slice of a limitless landscape. 

In View of Grainfields with a Distant Town, as in his other 
paintings of grainfields. Van Ruisdael emphasizes the 
contrast between cultivated fields and untamed nature by 

employing different painting techniques: painterly brush¬ 
strokes ( schilderachtig ) for the rough brush in shadow in the 
foreground; and more refined brushwork for the distant, 
sunlit fields and the sky. In doing so, he seems to celebrate 
the widely admired ability of the Netherlands to transform 
barren land into productive fields by employing advanced 
garden and farming practices, including crop rotation, to 
improve the quality of the land. In 1645 Sir Richard Weston 
(1591-1651), an English canal builder and agriculturalist 
who had studied Flemish farming practices, wrote in 
the introduction to his book Brabant-Husbandry, “The whole 
Discourse shews you, how to improve barren and healthy 
land, and how to raise more than ordinary profit thereof... .'' 8 

The ability to transform barren land into productive 
fields and gardens was also a popular theme in Dutch 
literature, not surprising for a country largely reclaimed 
from the sea. The establishment of peace with Spain had, 
moreover, meant that fields left fallow during the war were 
again productive. Poets praised the ability of agriculture to 
tame nature and transform wilderness into fertile land. 

In his garden poem on the country estate of Duinrel near 
The Hague, Coenraad Droste (1642-1734) wrote, “Nature 
can be given a different essence / If one is trained in the 
application of agriculture: / Wilderness can be turned into 
useful and fertile land.'' 9 By the late seventeenth century, 
Dutch gardeners actually incorporated rustic elements into 
their garden designs to emphasize the ability of the gar¬ 
dener to transform barren land. After purchasing Sorgvliet, 
the former country estate of Jacob Cats (1577-1660), who 
immortalized it in a poem, Hans Willem Bentinck (1649- 
1709), Earl of Portland and confidant of William III, trans¬ 
formed and expanded the estate's garden. He introduced 
formal French garden design but also incorporated the 
surrounding dense wilderness, including a brook. 10 Johan 
Maurits van Nassau-Siegen (1604-1679), who wrote a list of 
suggestions regarding the extension, protection, and 
embellishment of the grounds of Sorgvliet in 1674, shared 
Bentinck's appreciation for rustic nature: “The most beau¬ 
tiful and rarest sight in Holland is to have a lively rivulet. 
One should let this run its own natural course... crooked as 
it may be, since straight lines are not always pleasant.'' 0 

Van Ruisdael's View of Grainfields with a Distant Town, in 
which the sun illuminates the golden meadows and sheaves 
of wheat while leaving untamed nature in the shadows, 
celebrates the transformation of the land into productive 
fields. Like the paintings of cattle grazing by Paulus Potter 
(1625-1654) and Aelbert Cuyp (1620-1691), it ultimately 
celebrates the Dutch agricultural industry. 12 


Van Ruisdael, View of Grainfields with a Distant Town 



Fig. TR26.1 In the X-radiograph, the strip of 
original paint that had been previously folded over a 
stretcher is indicated in red. Cusping in the canvas is 
indicated in green. The white areas through the 
center of the painting are paint losses that have been 
filled and inpainted. 

The support is a tightly woven, medium- 
weight canvas lined to a similar fabric 
with an aqueous adhesive. Tacking 
margins have been removed. The origi¬ 
nal canvas does not extend to the edges 
of the stretcher on the right and bot¬ 
tom, where it is about 14 inch short of 
the stretcher edge. The space has been 
filled with a white material and painted 
to continue the design. Only the bottom 
and left side of the original canvas have 
noticeable scallops. 

About 1 inch into the painting along the 
left edge there is a vertical line or crease 
(fig. TR26.1). The paint in this strip of 
original fabric is damaged and restored. 
There is paint loss in the lower 6 inches 
of the strip and several smaller losses 

above it. The crease could have been 
created if the strip of painting had 
been turned over a smaller stretcher at 
one time but then in a later restoration 
folded out and restored. 

The canvas has a thin reddish ground 
with a gray (or possibly white) ground 
of medium thickness on top. No 
underdrawing was found with infrared 
reflectography (IRR). Paints range from 
thick, opaque light colors with evident 
brushstrokes and low impasto in the 
clouds to transparent dark colors in the 
foreground shadows. The sky has two 
layers of paint. A light blue paint, which 
contains mostly dark, cool blue smalt 
and lead-white pigments, was painted 
directly on the ground. Paint contain¬ 
ing bright blue smalt mixed with white 
was applied on top, approximately 
around the forms of the clouds. Thin 
films of orange and pink paints 

containing ocher pigments on the light 
blue paint layer create the gray grada¬ 
tions of the clouds. More white pigment 
was added for the lighter grays and 
cream colors. The X-radiograph shows 
energetic brushwork in the clouds that 
was accomplished with medium-size 
brushes, smaller than those Van Ruisdael 
used in The Great Oak (cat. no. 25). 

As he did in The Great Oak , Van Ruisdael 
here rendered the landscape, espe¬ 
cially the areas of shadow, with dark, 
translucent paint. Azurite pigments 
were employed throughout the land¬ 
scape. Lead-tin yellow gives the wheat 
and the green hilltop intensity and 
brightness. The shadowed sides of the 
haystacks are basically the dark 


Van Ruisdael, View of Grainfields with a Distant Town 

Fig. TR26.2 Infrared reflectogram 

underlayer. Figures and landscape 
details were painted over the painted 

Van Ruisdael painted the trees directly 
with fluid paint and narrow brushes 
over the initial lay-in of the landscape 
and on top of the sky. As in The Great 
Oak, some of the tree trunks, limbs, and 
branches appear dark in IRR because of 
the concentration of carbon black in the 
gray paint used for these parts of the 
tree (fig. TR26.2). 

The artist signed with a dark paint over 
the dry paint of the landscape. 

A medium crackle pattern runs through¬ 
out the painting, and some stretcher 
marks are visible. The X-radiograph 
reveals a number of losses of paint and 
ground. The most significant losses 
have narrow, irregular, elongated shapes. 
These are located particularly in part 
of the sky and in the central landscape. 

A horizontal loss in the billowing cloud 
measures about 3 inches long, and 
several other losses around it range 
from about Vz to iVz inches long. 

A narrow horizontal loss about 6 inches 
long runs along the upper part of 
the wheatfield. Some of the restoration 
of these losses covers original paint. 

The surface of the painting has some 
abrasion. There is also some abrasion of 
the signature, but it has not been 
enhanced and is legible. The J in the 
first part of the monogram of the 
signature is very indistinct. The varnish 
appears fairly thick in ultraviolet light 
and fluoresces a milky green-blue, 
while restorations show up as soft peach 
in color. 


Van Ruisdael, View of Grainfields with a Distant Town 


Salomon van Ruysdael 


River Landscape with a Ferry , 1650 

Oil on wood, 20 14 x 32% in. 

(52.1 x 83.5 cm) 

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter 



Signed and dated lower left, on ferry: 





S alomon van RuysdaeFs river landscapes are among his 
most beautiful and recognizable paintings. Dated 
1650, River Landscape with a Ferry is a mature work and 
one of Van RuysdaeFs most successful variants on the theme 
he introduced in the 1630s and perfected during the late 
1640s and 1650s. Typical of his mature paintings, in the 
Carter painting a new stateliness combining major vertical 
elements and strong accents of color and light replaces 
the earlier emphasis on a diagonally receding shoreline and 
tonal palette of browns, ochers, greens, and soft blues thinly 
applied with additional glazes (Hamburger Kunsthalle, 
Hamburg, inv. no. 627). As in his earlier river landscapes, 
however, the foreground is occupied by a broad expanse of 
water cast in shadow. Silhouetted against the light-colored 
water in the middle distance, a ferryboat loaded with cattle 
and passengers glides across the smooth surface of the river 
parallel to the distant horizon. By remaining below the 
horizon line, the boat yields to the landscape. To the right 
an unidentified church is nestled behind a massive stand of 
trees that clings to the shore of the river. The tall, feathery 
trees arching over the water and reaching up to the sky form 
a strong vertical element that anchors the composition. 

A steep visual diagonal, extending from the top of the trees 
to a sailboat listing in the wind on the far left, connects the 
foreground to the distance. 

By interrupting the continuous diagonal shoreline 
that is typical of his river landscapes from the 1630s, 

Van Ruysdael increases the impression of depth. Here the 
river winds back behind the trees, reappearing where 
the soft pastel colors and looser brushwork define detail and 
suggest the reflection of the setting sun. The boathouse 
elevated above the water on stilts, the man in the small row¬ 
boat, and the ferry form a subtle, but effective, transition 
between the light-filled distance and the darker foreground, 
where glazes mix with pigment to create the translucent 
effect of the river and suggest the reflections of the trees. 
Typical of his mature paintings, here Van Ruysdael firmly 

draws thick, colorful paint across the sky, leaving visible 
brushstrokes that emphasize the horizon and contrast with 
the loose, spirited description of the shore and the soft 
billowing clouds that animate the thinly painted blue sky. 

Van Ruysdael introduced the motif of a ferryboat 
loaded with cattle and passengers placed parallel to the 
picture plane as if crossing a river in 1631 (The National 
Gallery, London, on loan from the Victoria and Albert 
Museum, inv. no. L1114), 1 probably inspired by the 1622 
painting The Cattle Ferry (Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv. no. 
SK-A-1293) by Esaias van de Velde (see cat. no. 31). The 
ferryboat became a dominant theme and compositional 
device in Van RuysdaeFs mature paintings after 1650. 

A common sight in the Netherlands during the seventeenth 
century, these flat-bottomed boats were used to transport 
people and animals, as well as coaches, across inland 
waterways. They were an important part of the elaborate 
transportation system that connected Dutch cities along 
the rivers, canals, and roads. 2 As demonstrated in this 
painting, ferries were propelled by a man who stood at the 
stern of the flat-bottomed boat and pushed into the shallow 
riverbed with a long pole. Another man would control 
the forward movement with a rope anchored to a tree on 
the opposite shore. 

The ferry is a particularly effective compositional 
device in the Carter painting. In River Landscape with Ferry 
Boat, also from 1650 (Harold Samuel Collection, Guildhall 
Art Gallery, City of London, inv. no. 3760), a ferry appears 
against the wooded shore that extends almost three-quarters 
across the width of the panel. In the Carter painting, how¬ 
ever, where the shore reaches only halfway across the panel, 
the ferry, silhouetted against the sunlit river, contributes 
to the classically balanced composition that evokes a feeling 
of quiet serenity, characteristic of the paintings collected 
by the Carters. 


Van Ruysdael, River Landscape with a Ferry 



Fig. TR27.1 Reverse of the panel 
Fig. TR27.2 Infrared reflectogram 

The panel, approximately Va inch thick 
and beveled, is composed of two boards. 
The top board is 9% inches wide and 
the bottom, 11 Vs inches wide. The join is 
now strengthened with a canvas strip 
adhered on the reverse (fig. TR27.1). 
Strips of wood approximately Va inch 
wide have been added to all four sides. 

The infrared reflectogram (IRR) was 
clear and sharp with good contrast 
between the bright, IR-reflective ground 
and the dark, absorbing underdrawing 
(fig. TR27.2). 1 There is a surprising 
amount of underdrawing in this paint¬ 
ing, found mainly in the figures on 
the ferry but also throughout the land¬ 
scape. The IRR revealed lines that 
are all fairly fine and dark. The appear¬ 
ance of these lines is characteristic of 
a brush application: the lines have a uni¬ 
formly solid density and waver slightly 
in width, with more pigmented medium 
at the beginning of the brushstroke. 

At first it was thought that the under¬ 
drawing visible in IRR was the dark 
brown, brushed outlines of the figures 
visible in normal light. However, 

when the IR reflectogram was super¬ 
imposed with a high-resolution colored 
image of the painting, most of these 
brown outlines disappeared. Closer 
examination with the digital micro¬ 
scope revealed that the dark outlines 
found in the IRR corresponded instead 
with light gray, brushed outlines that 
are barely visible in the colored image 
and normal light. It is the carbon-black 
pigment in the light gray that makes 
the underdrawing dark and obvious 
in IRR. The X-radiograph showed many 
of these same brushed outlines to be 
bright white, indicating that the gray 
was a combination of carbon black, 
visible only in the IRR, and lead white, 
visible only in X-radiography (fig. 

The dark brown and pale gray outlines 
are so close in position (the brown 
almost on top of the gray) that it is 
evident that Van Ruysdael closely 
followed the initial light gray under¬ 
drawing. It is often thought that later 
paintings by him do not contain 
any underdrawing, perhaps because the 
lines that show up in IRR are assumed 
to be the dark brown, brushed outlines 
that are clearly part of the upper paint 

layers. Certainly the type of underdraw¬ 
ing in this painting contrasts with 
the energetic, loose underdrawing found 
in some of his earlier paintings; see 
LACMA's Landscape with Deer Hunters 
(inv. no. 52.24), which dates about 1630. 
The underdrawing in this earlier 
painting was determined to be graphite 
or metalpoint. 

It should also be noted that while some 
of the gray underdrawing in the fore¬ 
ground of River Landscape with a Ferry is 
covered with colored paint layers, other 
brushed gray lines in the background 
landscape (similar in character to the 
lines identified as underdrawing in the 
foreground) have been left fully exposed 
as part of the final composition. 

A thin light pinkish ground is discern¬ 
ible, but there may be an even thinner 
white ground directly on the panel. 
Paints range from thick, opaque light 
colors to thin, translucent warm ones. 
Painting fairly directly, Van Ruysdael 
laid out the landscape and sky, leaving 


Van Ruysdael, River Landscape with a Ferry 

Fig. TR27.3 X-radiograph showing the dense lines 
that appear white along the ferry and its occupants 
and the tree trunks on the bank to the right that 
may be part of an underpainting. Also note the 
variety of brushwork. 

Fig. TR27.4 Digital micrograph (50X magnification) 
of blue sky to show blue pigment 

obvious brushwork and low impasto. 
For the blue sky he used paints con¬ 
taining shades of smalt applied with 
open, diagonal brushstrokes so that the 
warm color of the ground affects the 
color of the sky (fig. TR27.4). The varied 
cream, gray, and blue colors of the 
clouds were applied with an interesting 
array of brushwork that shows best in 
the X-radiograph. Long, horizontal 
strokes of thick paint lie above the 
horizon, noticeable grooves left by the 
bristles of the brush create fine shad¬ 
ows, and the contrast of pink and blue 
colors produces a vibrant depth. In 
contrast to the regular, horizontal 
strokes of the sky and the broad han¬ 
dling in the clouds, Van Ruysdael 
painted the sky around the trees and 
buildings with smaller brushstrokes 
that move in numerous directions. 

The dark areas of the landscape were laid 
in with thin, warm, translucent paint. 
Richer, thicker translucent brown paint 
makes up the deep shadows, such as 
those along the bank of the river on the 
right side of the painting. Reflections 

of trees and of the loaded ferry were 
painted with the dark paint and thin, 
muted, local color. 

The ferry and its passengers were 
painted over the paint of the river. The 
forms were then worked up with local 
color and outlined with a thin line of 
dark paint. With high magnification, 
light gray paint can be seen peeking out 
along the edges of the figures and cattle; 
these exposed edges show as white in 
the X-radiograph, because the paint 
contains a dense pigment such as lead 
white, but in IRR the paint appears 
dark due to a carbon-black pigment. 

The buildings were planned and 
painted directly on the warm ground, 
but trees in front of the architecture 
were painted over the already set paint 
of the buildings and landscape. 

The tree foliage is composed of dabs 
and short strokes of paint applied with 
small brushes into the soft-to-firm 

paint of the sky. The paint of the foliage 
contains copper- and iron-based pig¬ 
ments and was worked wet-into-wet. 

It is glazed at least in part with copper 
resinate that is now discolored. 

The painting is in very good condition, 
with only light abrasion. There is a fine 
crackle pattern that is not obvious. Lead 
soaps developed in some of the dark 
paints as they aged. The X-radiograph 
shows minor paint loss along the join. 
Ultraviolet light showed limited 
restoration along the cracks, especially 
in the right half of the picture. Other¬ 
wise, there are only some scattered 
restorations. The varnish is even, semi¬ 
matte, and no longer very saturating. 

It has an even fluorescence. 


1 A bandpass filter of noonm was found to give 
the sharpest image with good contrast between 
the bright white, IR-reflective calcium-carbonate 
ground and the IR-absorbing carbon-black 


Van Ruysdael, River Landscape with a Ferry 





Salomon van Ruysdael 


View of the River Lek and Vianen, 1668 

Oil on canvas, 22 Vz x 35% in. 

(57.2 x 91.1 cm) 

Signed and dated lower right: SVRuysdael 1668 

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter 


V iew of the River Lek and Vianen, dated 1668, is one of the 
last of the long series of broad views of rivers, estu¬ 
aries, and inland seas that Salomon van Ruysdael and 
Jan van Goyen (see cat. nos. 11,12) introduced in the 1640s. 
Because the horizon line lies so low, at less than one-quarter 
the height of the panel, the layers of shifting clouds that 
cast shadows across the landscape are the major protago¬ 
nists. The diagonal wedge that formed the dominant struc¬ 
ture of Van Ruysdael's earlier landscapes, including Landscape 
with Deer Hunters, about 1631 (fig. 28.1), and River Landscape 
with a Ferry (cat. no. 27), is only minimally present here. 

What is retained, however, is the dark shadow across the 
foreground, beyond which the light draws the eye to 
the distant horizon, directed by the boats and marked by 
the projections of shadow, land, and figures. 

The composition of View of the River Lek and Vianen is 
similar to that of Van RuysdaeTs Rhine River View nearRhenen 
(fig. 28.2), which is undated but must have been executed 
close in date to the Carter painting. In both works the same 
sailboat appears on the left, and cattle silhouetted against 
the sunlit river stand in the shallow water in the middle 
distance. The Carter painting is, however, more subtle than 
the Barnes landscape: rather than align the boats sailing 
into the distance to indicate space, here Van Ruysdael placed 
small boats on the horizon to which a bright patch of water 
draws the viewer's attention. 

The towers of the city of Vianen rise above the trees in 
the right distance: the city's large Gothic church, one of 
several clustered in the center of the town, appears on the 
left. On the right, to the west, is Sint-Pol's Tower next to 
Batestein Castle, the seat of the lords of Brederode, one of 
the largest landowning and most powerful families in 

Holland. 1 Located on the south bank of the River Lek, known 
for its abundance of salmon, Vianen was a popular excur¬ 
sion for tourists as well as for residents of Utrecht, to which 
it was connected by a canal. Writing in his journal in the 
summer of 1699, an anonymous English student at the 
University of Utrecht, traveling with his brother and proba¬ 
bly a tutor, described his visit to Vianen: 

About two hours or six miles [south] from Utrecht lies 
Vianen, a little sovereignty by itself. There is a little 
town, walled round, and the remains of an old castle 
and a dwelling house. There is a fine wood; they have 
good fish out of the Lek or Rhine, which is hard by. It 
is very pleasant coming from Utrecht hither by water 
in the summertime. And there is a public house in 
the wood where one may have good pike or carp at any 
time, they keeping them always ready in a pond, so 
that one may always depend on a pretty dish of fishJ 

Van Ruysdael's representation of recognizable land¬ 
marks reflects the contemporary interest in travel and 
tourism. Profiles of cities and towns (often taken from rivers) 
had been popular in prints since the late sixteenth century, 
but the depiction of specific places and monuments became 
the primary subjects of paintings only during the second 
quarter of the seventeenth century, especially after the 
end of the Eighty Years' War in 1648. The introduction of 
these subjects also coincided with the expansion of a net¬ 
work of canals and rivers that facilitated travel and tourism 
throughout the country. Typically, as here, the paintings 
portray the city and its major monuments accurately, 
but the landscape setting is usually a fantasy. 3 The angle 


Van Ruysdael, View of the River Lek and Vianen 

from which Vianen is represented emphasizes the distinc¬ 
tive square tower of Sint-Pol. The view, which is very close to 
that published by Abraham Rademaker in 1725 based on 
a drawing of 1630, is from the perspective of the canal coming 
from Utrecht, which Rademaker noted offered particularly 
nice views of the town of Vianen. 4 It is possible to imagine 
the boat on the left entering the river from the canal. How¬ 
ever, the landscape, while suggestive of Vianehs setting, 
cannot be reconciled with the actual river that curves 
around the town, flowing north and then south as it contin¬ 
ues west. The prevailing winds and setting sun, which 
should come from the west, furthermore, are represented 
here as coming from the left, the east. 

Van Ruysdael animated the composition with staffage 
that not only complements the major lines of the landscape 
but also suggests the activity on the river and the founda¬ 
tions of the Dutch economy: fishing, transport, and cattle. 
In the shallows of the middle distance, three men strain 
to haul in a seine net, which was hung vertically and drawn 
through the water from the riverbank to capture fish. 

Nearby, cattle have wandered down from the polders for 
a drink in the shallows of the river. The Lek is a continuation 
of the Nederrijn (Lower Rhine) and thus was part of a major 
transport route from the Rhine to Rotterdam, where it 
becomes the Nieuwe Maas River and ultimately flows to the 
sea. The broad hull of the sailboat indicates that it was used 
on inland rivers, probably part of the elaborate beurtveer 
network used to transport passengers and cargo between 
cities. 5 The tent fixed to one of the two boats beached in the 
center right suggests that it may have been used to trans¬ 
port passengers locally. 6] 

Van Ruysdael portrayed several towns along the River 
Lek, including Rhenen, the official residence of Frederick V 
(1596-1632), elector Palatine, and Elizabeth Stuart (1596- 
1662), the so-called Winter King and Queen, suggesting that 
he, like Van Goyen, traveled along the river recording his 
impressions firsthand. Unlike Van Goyen, who was a prolific 
draftsman, however. Van Ruysdael left no drawings that can 
be securely attributed to him, indicating that he may have 
relied on topographical drawings or prints by other artists. 


Van Ruysdael, View of the River Lek and Vianen 

Fig. 28.1 

Fig. 28.2 

Fig. 28.1 Salomon van Ruysdael, Landscape with Deer 
Hunters, ca. 1631. Oil on wood, 29 x 43.5 in. 

(73.7 x 110.5 cm). Los Angeles County Museum of Art, 
Adele S. Browning Memorial Collection, donated by 
Mildred Browning Green and Judge Lucius Peyton 
Green (inv. no. 52.24) 

Fig. 28.2 Salomon van Ruysdael, Rhine River View 
nearRhenen, ca. 1660-65. Oil on wood panel, 

14.8 x 24.4 in. (37.5 x 62 cm). The Barnes Foundation, 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (inv. no. BF808) 


Van Ruysdael, View of the River Lek and Vianen 



The plain-weave, medium-weight canvas 
support is lined to a similar fabric with 
an aqueous adhesive. Tacking margins 
have been removed. Cusping can be 
seen on the left and right sides of the 
original support. The stretcher is a little 
larger than the painting. 

The canvas has a light pinkish ground 
(fig. TR28.1). Infrared reflectography 
(IRR) showed many dark lines through¬ 
out the composition (fig. TR28.2). 
However, it is difficult to say with 
certainty that these are actually under¬ 
drawn, as many of the lines are also 
visible in normal light. Van Ruysdael 
may have been incorporating cursory 
underdrawn lines into his painting, 
allowing them to be visible as part of 
the composition. 

Paints range from light opaque and 
pasty to thinner, medium-rich darks. 
Comparatively loose brushwork is 
visible in the sky. In the X-radiograph 
long, horizontal brushstrokes are 
visible at the horizon. 

The blue paint of the sky, a mixture 
including smalt with lead white, was 
applied over the ground. For the 
gray clouds, the artist glazed reddish to 
orange colors (ocher pigments) on the 
blue paint of the sky, and for the light¬ 
est clouds, he used mixtures containing 
large portions of lead white. The water 
was treated in much the same way. 

The foreground landscape was laid in 
with a tan-colored layer of paint, over 
which the darks were applied rather 
thickly in some instances. The sandbar 
is a mixture of white, blue (smalt), 
yellow, and red pigments; copper- and 
iron-based pigments were used for the 
green colors in the landscape. 

The ships, figures, and cows were 
painted after the landscape was well 
under way, but some forms were 
painted into the sky paint while it was 
barely set, for example the flag of the 
sailboat in the foreground. Red lake 
mixed with azurite pigments was used 
for the paint of the flag. The figures 
are composed of a few well-placed 
strokes of paint of various colors over 
the landscape paint (fig. TR28.3). 

The painting is in good condition. The 
lining flattened the paint to some 
degree. There is a mechanical crackle 
pattern of medium size; it is somewhat 
noticeable because the edges of the 
cracks are lifted and old varnish in the 
crevices appears dark. There are two 
diagonal cracks at the lower right. 
Stretcher-bar marks are faint but visible 


Van Ruysdael, View of the River Lek and Vianen 

Fig. TR28.3 Detail of head of man pulling net in the 
central mid-ground showing the strokes of paint in 
the man’s face 

on the top and on the right side (about 
1 inch into the picture) as well as at 
the center, where the bars crossed. The 
upper right corner has restoration 
smeared over the surface, perhaps to 
hide cracks and abrasion. Ultraviolet 
light reveals restoration of many cracks, 
including some along the edges. 

The signature, which lies below a fluo¬ 
rescing varnish, appears to be done with 
a dark green-brown paint. It is abraded 
and toned but partly readable. The 
painting was saturated with a natural 
resin varnish, and old restorations were 
corrected at LACMA in 1988. 


Van Ruysdael, View of the River Lek and Vianen 





Pieter J ansz. Saenredam Interior of the Sint-Mariakerk, 

(1597—1665) Utrecht, 1651 

Oil on wood, 19% x 14 Vs in. 
(48.6x35.9 cm) 

Signed and dated lower right, on the plinth: 
P.r Saenredam fecit AN 1651 

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward W. Carter 


J nterior of the Sint-Mariakerk, Utrecht is a masterpiece of 
understatement. Focusing on one of the massive piers, 
Pieter Jansz. Saenredam chose an oblique view of 
the east end of the north aisle. Crisp lines and deftly applied 
paint restricted to a narrow range of beige and gray suggest 
the flow of light and shadow that sculpt the interior of 
the church, celebrating the pure forms of its architecture, 
while creating an impression of tangible space. 

Saenredam’s presence in Utrecht is documented by 
the numerous drawings he made of churches in the city 
during the summer and early autumn of 1636. In June 1636 
he left his native Haarlem and traveled to Utrecht. 1 For 
the next five months he sketched the city’s churches, return¬ 
ing to Haarlem by early November. His reason for visiting 
Utrecht has been attributed to his interest in the antiquity 
and beauty of the city’s churches. In their monograph on the 
artist, however, Gary Schwartz and Marten Jan Bok note 
Saenredam’s connections to the chapters of the Utrecht 
collegiate churches and to Constantijn Huygens (1596-1687), 
the Dutch statesman, poet, composer, and secretary to the 
prince of Orange who had multiple ties to Utrecht and to 
the Sint-Mariakerk (Saint Mary’s Church), the subject of the 
Carter painting. They also note circumstantial evidence that 
Huygens probably owned three paintings by Saenredam. 2 

Saenredam’s activities in Utrecht can be traced by the 
dates he inscribed on his drawings. For five weeks between 
18 June and 25 July, he worked in the Sint-Mariakerk. 
Founded by Bishop Koenraad (d. 1099) at the instigation of 
Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV and built between 1085 
and 1150, 3 the Sint-Mariakerk was severely damaged at the 
end of 1576, when artillery demolished the northwest tower 
during the siege by the Spanish of nearby Vredenburg 
Castle. It sustained further damage during the Eighty Years’ 
War with Spain (1568-1648), when it was used to billet 
troops. In the seventeenth century the Sint-Mariakerk was 
a collegiate church owned by the city of Utrecht and run by 

the canons of the chapter of Sint Maria, an ecclesiastical 
body that had survived the Reformation. 4 By 1636, when 
Saenredam made his systematic study of it, the church was 
in poor repair and had been stripped of its altarpieces, 
sculptures, and stained glass. The church was ultimately 
destroyed in the nineteenth century. 

Saenredam produced at least eleven drawings of the 
interior and three of the exterior of the Mariakerk. It was 
only after his return to Haarlem, however, that he executed 
paintings based on the drawings. Those of the Mariakerk 
were the first he painted, suggesting that that church 
was his primary interest. Dated 1651, the Carter painting was 
not, however, executed until fifteen years after the now- 
lost drawing he made on location. 

The Carter panel represents the north aisle of the Sint- 
Mariakerk viewed from the west looking toward the east 
end of the church. Through the arches on the right can be 
seen the famous choir screen built in 1543-44 after a design 
by Jan van Scorel (1495-1562), a canon of the church and 
a painter whom Karel van Mander (1548-1606) credited with 
the introduction of Italian art to the Netherlands. Other 
extant drawings and paintings indicate Saenredam’s move¬ 
ments within the church. 5 The date 25 July 1636 inscribed 
on his drawing of the north aisle from east to west (Het 
Utrechts Archief, inv. no. 28608) was probably close to the 
date he would have made the preliminary drawing for the 
Carter painting representing the north aisle from the west. 

Saenredam’s procedure was to make a drawing on 
location, recording the appearance of the building from 
a particular vantage point. He then made careful measure¬ 
ments of the actual structure, with which he produced 
an accurate construction drawing, employing distant points 
and guidelines. 6 The final drawing was then blackened on 
the reverse and transferred to the prepared panel with 
a stylus. Only the outlines of the architectural elements were 
transferred, eliminating the construction lines that helped 


Saenredam, Interior of the Sint-Mariakerk, Utrecht 

to develop the drawing. In some cases, but not in the Carter 
painting, Saenredam used a grid to transfer his composition 
to the panel. 7 In the process of developing the final compo¬ 
sition, certain elements could be eliminated. In the painting 
of the transept seen from the north to south (1637; Rijks- 
museum, Amsterdam, inv. no. SK-A-858), for example. Van 
ScoreFs choir screen that features so prominently on the 
left in the first sketch (dated 22 July 1636) has been totally 
eliminated. 1 

Saenredairis initial drawing of the north aisle looking 
east, which would have served as the basis for the Carter 
painting, has not survived. The construction drawing also 
has not survived, possibly destroyed or weakened during 
the process of being transferred to the panel. The only 
indication of his working process is a copy of his construc¬ 
tion drawing made in the eighteenth century by Hendrik 
Tavenier (1734-1807) (fig. 29.1). Comparison of the drawing 
with the painting shows that Saenredam simplified the 
composition, reducing the double stringcourse and elimi¬ 
nating the third niche with sculpture in the eastern apse of 
the north aisle. 9 Infrared reflectography indicates, however, 
that the niche was planned but never painted (see Technical 
Report). Based on the evidence of the Tavenier drawing, 
Saenredam apparently also rethought and elaborated the 

lighting when working on the final painting. 10 In the draw¬ 
ing, for example, the right edge of the apse is cast in shadow, 
but in the painting it appears brightly lit. 

The composition in the painting differs significantly 
from the Tavenier drawing. In the painting the wall on 
the left and the arch that frames the aisle in the drawing 
have been eliminated. The physical condition of the panel 
supports the conclusion indicated by these differences 
that Saenredairis finished painting was cut on the top and 
left. Bevels are absent on all four sides of the panel, but 
whereas paint rolls over edges of the panel on the right and 
lower borders, the paint at the left and top edges of the 
panel is sliced away. It is unknown whether Saenredam 
himself or a later hand made this change. Without the arch, 
which frames the composition in the drawing, the Carter 
painting more effectively draws the viewer into the aisle, 
creating a more dramatic impression of the space, which 
seems to soar upward. The result is a stronger image that 
reflects the changes Saenredam made in other paintings, 
hinting that he himself altered the structure of the panel. 
Figures of two men in eighteenth-century attire that 
were added by a later artist were removed by a conservator 
after the painting was sold in 1976.^ 


Saenredam, Interior of the Sint-Mariakerk, Utrecht 

Fig. 29.1 

Fig. 29.1 Hendrik Tavenier (1734-1807), The North 
Aisle of theMariakerkin Utrecht Seen from the East, 
ca. 1784. Pen and brownish-gray ink, brush and gray 
ink, 2 i 7 /s xi6 Vs in. (55.7 x 41.1 cm). Royal Collections, 
The Hague, The Netherlands (inv. no. MCS/223) 

Saenredam, Interior of the Sint-Mariakerk, Utrecht 



Fig. TR29.1 Infrared reflectogram 

Fig. TR29.2 Detail of pentimento of a third arch, 
marked in red, which was underdrawn but never 

The panel, approximately 3 /s inch thick, 
is planar except for very slight undu¬ 
lations. The reverse has no bevels and is 
covered with brown paint, which is 
rubbed and worn. The width of the panel 
at the top is about Vi 6 th inch narrower 
than at the bottom, and the height 
of the panel on the right side is shorter 
than on the left side. A wood strip 
(about s /i 6 inch wide) was glued to each 
side of the panel at a later date. 

The lip of paint remains over part of the 
bottom and right edges of the original 
panel. However, the left edge is uneven 
and the paint along the edge appears to 
have been scored. Scoring is also visible 
on the top edge. The pilaster supporting 
the arch on the very left edge is just 
visible; it has very little breadth and has 
been mostly overpainted. 

The painting appears to have a fairly 
thick, light-colored ground that may be 
covered with a dark gray imprimatura 
or second ground. Infrared reflectogra- 
phy (IRR) showed an underdrawing of 
thin, sharp lines that was used to define 
the architecture. Most of these lines 
were left visible in the completed paint¬ 
ing (fig. TR29.1). The lines have the 
appearance of having been made with 
a graphite pencil, metalpoint, or a trans¬ 
fer drawing. They are even in width and 
consistent in terms of darkness. 

Closer examination showed that some 
of the underdrawn lines are doubled, 
and many have stops or gaps. These can 
be characteristics of the use of a trans¬ 
ferred construction drawing, and 
Saenredam was known for using such 
a technique. 1 Drawings to be transferred 
are blackened on the reverse, then 
placed over the prepared painting sup¬ 
port, and a sharp stylus or pencil is used 
to transfer the lines of the drawing to 


Saenredam, Interior of the Sint-Mariakerk, Utrecht 

the painting’s support. Double lines, 
overlapping, and gaps within lines 
occur during the transfer if the paper 
shifts or if the artist stops and then 
restarts at a different point. The 
construction drawing that would have 
preceded the underdrawing on this 
panel may have included guidelines to 
help Saenredam achieve the correct 
perspective. These guidelines would not 
need to be transferred, and their 
absence in the painting further sup¬ 
ports the contention that the image was 
transferred from a preparatory drawing. 

IRR also revealed the pentimento of 
a third arch to the right of the two inset 
arches in the apse on the left side of 
the painting (fig. TR29.2). This third 
arch was done with sharp, thin lines, 
similar to the rest of the underdrawing, 
but it was not developed in paint. 

Fig. TR29.3 X-radiograph 

Fig. TR29.4 Detail of the column on the right 
showing underdrawing, the fine lines for the sides 
of the column, and thin translucent colors on the 
column and its base in the roping design 

X-radiography showed no additional 
niche, perhaps only some denser 
material that may be thicker paint with 
lead-white pigment, which was possi¬ 
bly used to cover the rejected design 
(fig- TR29.3). 

In the painting stage the drawn forms 
were filled in with paint. The drawn 
lines, however, were left visible; for 
example, the lines on either side of the 
foremost column are not covered 
with paint. Flat, opaque local colors 
were applied first. Then, the tones 
of the stone, details, and shadows were 
painted over the first layer. The 
yellowish color of the stone was created 
with thin glazes applied on top of the 
initial color. Architectural details, such 
as the pink bases and the capitals of 
the columns, were painted in flat local 
color and then glazed for detail. Thin, 
translucent colors were used, for 
example, to paint the roping design on 

the base of the column in the fore¬ 
ground (fig. TR29.4). The wood upper 
part of the choir screen at right was 
painted over the already set paint of the 
architecture. Based on a limited scien¬ 
tific study of the pigments, Saenredam 
appears to have used lead white, 
calcium white, and earth- and copper- 
based pigments in this painting. 

The signature is painted with a dark 
mauve paint over the dry paint of the 
plinth at the base of the column. The 
date is a little abraded. Ultraviolet light 
showed minor retouching scattered 
over much of the painting, particularly 
in the upper center. There is also 
restoration on the left and top edges. 
The painting was revarnished with 
a natural resin at LACMA in 1986. 


1 Van Heemstra 2002, pp. 75-77. 


Saenredam, Interior of the Sint-Mariakerk, Utrecht 


Adriaen van de Velde 

The Beach atScheveningen, 1670 


Oil on canvas, 15 Vi x 19% in. 
(39-4x50.2 cm) 


Signed and dated lower left, on boat: 



A. v .Veldef/1670 

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter 


Van de Velde, The Beach atScheveningei 

A s evening draws to a close, a well-dressed couple 
stands on the beach watching the sun set over 
the sea, which casts long shadows across the sand. 

A younger man, possibly their page, stands behind them. 
The fishing boats have been pulled up on the beach, and the 
fishermen—a man holding the long pole of a shrimp net 
and an old man with a heavy net slung over his shoulder— 
head inland. In the center a rider on horseback accompanied 
by his dog and a page passes two fishermen and a woman 
seated on the sand playing with a child. On the left, a young 
man seated on a fish trunk twists to look out to sea as 
a coach drawn by four horses races along the edge of the water 
followed by a footman. Barely visible in the distant right, 
swimmers cavort in the surf. 1 

Rising above the dunes, the simple church tower 
identifies the location of the scene depicted in Adriaen van 
de Velde's small painting as the beach at Scheveningen, 
a fishing village on the North Sea two miles west of The 
Hague, the traditional seat of the Dutch court. Since at least 
the late sixteenth century, and undoubtedly earlier, 
Scheveningen has been a popular retreat for young and old, 
rich and poor, who seek fresh air and relaxation away from 
the congested city. In 1624 a resident of The Hague wrote 
in his diary, “We... went to Scheveningen for a little sea air 
and to wade in the sea, walked half an hour on the beach, 
drank a pitcher [of beer] to the sheriff, and returned home at 
eight o'clock.” 2 The village and its beach were also well 
known to foreign visitors. In Les delices de laHollande, first 
published in 1651, the French traveler Jean de Parival 
referred to “the agreeable village of Scheveningen where 
one goes often in parties to eat fresh fish.” 3 Contemporary 
poems and songs extolled the pleasures of the beach 
and the virtues of its inhabitants, who were the subject of 
contemporary paintings and prints. Poets often identified 
fishermen and farmers, who were said to live in har¬ 
mony with nature and work hard without complaint, as 
exemplary for the urban dweller who had been corrupted 
by wealth and privilege. Assuming the voice of a fishwife 
in his poem “The Situation of a Woman from Scheveningen 
Who Carries a Basket of Fish on Her Head,” the Dutch 
statesman and poet Jacob Cats (1577-1660) wrote, for exam¬ 
ple, that although she works hard for little profit, she is 
happy because she is free. 1 

The attraction of the beach, economically as well as 
recreationally, was evidently so strong that one of the first 
paved roads in Holland was built in 1663 to take people from 
The Hague through the dunes to Scheveningen. The straight, 
smooth thoroughfare, paved with stone and planted with 
rows of trees on either side, was commemorated in 1667 by 
a long poem, De niewe zee-straet van ’s-Gravenhage op Schevening 
(Sea Street from The Hague to Scheveningen), by the 
statesman and poet Constantijn Huygens (1596-1687), who 
had promoted and helped design its construction (fig. 30.1). 

Foreigners for whom Scheveningen was a popular tourist 
attraction were impressed by the new paved road—still 
a rarity in Europe—noting that it had soon paid for itself 
with the tolls exacted from those who traveled it to 
the beach. 5 Sir Francis Child, one of the many Englishmen 
to tour the Netherlands, described his impressions of 
Scheveningen in 1697: 

The road hither, being so very pleasant, is in an evening 
frequented with many coaches, especially if it's low 
water, for then you may ride for two or three leagues 
on the shore, which is of a hard sand, and view the sea, 
with many fishing boats always sailing up and down. 
About the middle of the road is a gate at which 
you must pay four and a half stuivers passage gelt 
for a coach. The money arising by this toll goes to 
maintain the road. 6 

The Beach at Scheveningen is the last of only five beach 
scenes that Van de Velde signed with his name. Michael 
Robinson has suggested that he also painted another five 
beach scenes for the Willem van de Velde studio and four 
more in collaboration with his older brother Willem van de 
Velde the Younger (1633-1707)/ In the earliest beach scenes 
painted for his father's studio in about 1652, when he was 
approximately sixteen, Adriaen adopted the traditional 
view looking directly out to sea with only a sliver of sand in 
the foreground (fig. 30.2). 8 The paintings, essentially sea¬ 
scapes, are striking for their stark simplicity. In each a single 
fishing boat beached in the foreground is silhouetted 
against the sea and sky, which dominate the composition. 

In paintings executed under his own name beginning 
in 1658, Adriaen turned his attention to the beach itself, 
looking either north or south, usually including the distinc¬ 
tive tower of the church at Scheveningen. Viewed from 
a distance, the activity of the beach appears dwarfed by the 
enormous sky. In the earliest and largest of the group. The 
Beach at Scheveningen (Gemaldegalerie Alte Meister, Kassel, 
inv. no. GK 374), dated 1658, the view is south along the 
beach, where small groups of carefully observed figures 
extend deep into the distance. A man standing on the edge 
of the surf in bare feet with his trousers hiked to his knees 
looks out to sea, while others walk along the beach or 
play in the puddles left by the retreating surf. Suffusing the 
scene with warm sunlight that casts shadows of the vividly 
colored figures and also creates reflections on the wet 
sand. Van de Velde captures the sensual as well as emotional 
experience of the beach. 

Van de Velde's evolving interest in figures as the subject, 
not just the staffage, of his beach scenes distinguishes his 
work from that of his brother and from the paintings he did 
for the Willem van de Velde studio. In two beach paintings 
executed in 1660, he draws closer to his subjects. In The 


Adriaen van de Velde, TheBeach atScheveningei 

Coast near Scheveningen (Royal Collection Trust, London, 
inv. no. RCIN 404802), the narrative takes place in the 
foreground, where a well-dressed couple talk to a fisher¬ 
man who gestures toward the sea. A wagon with a roof 
woven of wattles and drawn by two horses—a seventeenth- 
century taxi—transports other visitors back to town, past 
a one-legged beggar. In the distance a group of people looks 
out to sea from the top of a dune. In the second painting 
from 1660, A Nobleman's Carriage on the Beach at Scheveningen 
(Musee du Louvre, Paris, inv. no. 1915), a coach drawn by six 
horses and followed by footmen approaches the foreground 
watched by fishermen and well-dressed visitors to the 
beach. The artist drew even closer to his subject in Beach View 
of 1663-65 (Mauritshuis, The Hague, inv. no. 198), in which 
a group of fisherfolk relax on the beach next to a lean-to; 
the grouping is similar to that in his contemporary paintings 
of pastoral subjects in which shepherds rest in a field with 
their animals, reflecting idealized descriptions of the happy, 
virtuous peasant. By placing the figures in the left fore¬ 
ground, silhouetted against the sky, as if viewed from close 
by, the artist avoided in the Mauritshuis picture the awkward 
relationships of scale and space found in the London paint¬ 
ing, which probably resulted from his use of individual 
figure drawings and insufficient knowledge of perspective. 

In the Carter painting, dated 1670, Van de Velde places 
the viewer on the beach in direct relationship with the 
couple in the foreground who command our attention. 
Although his early problems with perspective are still 

evident in the inappropriately large figure of the boy seated 
on the fish trunk. Van de Velde carefully planned the com¬ 
position to create the impression of space in which the 
viewer can imagine himself. Wagon tracks leading into the 
scene cut through the sand and wind around the fish trunk 
into the distance. Sharp shadows cast by the setting sun 
and the broad shadows of the passing clouds help to define 
the flat surface of the sand and mark the progression into the 
landscape, where the darkness is interrupted by the bright 
sky and reflections on the water and wet sand. The shadows 
contribute to the mood of quiet contemplation. 

By 1670 the motif of people standing on the beach 
looking out to sea was a well-established convention that 
had been introduced by Adam Willaerts (1577-1664) 
and others in the early seventeenth century in paintings in 
which people watch the foundering of a ship or the arrival 
of the fleet, as in View of aBeach by Simon de Vlieger (see 
cat. no. 34). Van de Velde had already employed the motif in 
his paintings of Scheveningen now in Kassel and London, 
where he positioned people on a dune looking out to sea. 

In the Carter painting, as in contemporary paintings by 
him Jacob van Ruisdael (1628/29-1682), and others, however, 
there is no particular event that has drawn people to the 
beach; rather, the sea itself, the setting sun, and fresh air are 
the attractions. For the viewer of Van de Velde's painting, it 
is the memory of a visit to the beach that provokes pleasure 
and refreshment. 


Adriaen van de Velde, TheBeach atScheveningei 

Fig. 30.1 

Fig. 30.1 Illustration from Dezee-straet Van ’s-Graven- 
hage op Scheveningby Constantijn Huygens, 1667. 
Double-leaf engraving. Getty Research Institute, 

Los Angeles, Romeyn de Hooghe Collection (inv. no. 

Fig. 30.2 Adriaen van de Velde, Seascape: Mouth 
of the Waal atHellevoet-Sluis, ca. 1652. Oil on wood, 

9 Ys x n 3 /s in. (23 x 29 cm). Formerly in Schlossmuseum 
Weimar, stolen from Schwarzburg Castle in 1945 


Adriaen van de Velde, TheBeach atScheveningei 



Fig. TR30.1 X-radiograph marked with the original 
tacking margins marked at their initial fold-over 
(the line of loss). The initial margins appear dense or 
white due to fill and paint that extended the 
painting to its present size. 

The original canvas is a fairly fine, plain- 
weave fabric with numerous irregu¬ 
larities, such as coarse threads. It is lined 
with what appears to be a wax-resin 
adhesive to a plain-weave fabric inter¬ 
leaved with gauze. The original tacking 
edges have been turned out, filled, 
and painted to extend the image. The 
X-radiograph revealed tattered but 
mostly intact tacking margins, lines of 
loss where the margin had originally 
been folded over a stretcher, and several 
sets of tack holes, some near the edge of 
the image (fig. TR30.1). The original 
dimensions of the painting before exten¬ 
sions would have been approximately 
1514 by 19% inches (38.7 by 49.2 cm). 

The medium-thick ground has a dark 
reddish color. It was difficult to deter¬ 
mine if any underdrawing existed 
in this painting. Some faint dark lines 
were found in infrared reflectography 
(IRR) along the horizon and hills to 
the right, where the upper paint layers 

are somewhat transparent (fig. TR30.2). 
Most of these lines, however, were 
also visible in normal light. The upper 
paint layers of the beach and the figures 
are quite dark in the IRR, indicating 
that they contain carbon black, effec¬ 
tively blocking the appearance of any 
underdrawing or pentimenti beneath. 
In addition, the dark reddish-brown 
ground is also IR absorbing and, 
as such, would not provide enough 
contrast with any underdrawing to 
make it visible. 

The artist painted the sky with a thin 
light gray layer that extends from the 
top edge of the canvas to the horizon, 
leaving a reserve for the steeple and, 
interestingly, for the man on horseback. 
The boats and the roof of the hut to the 

left of the steeple were painted over 
the gray paint. The blue color of the sky 
comes from a bright blue paint contain¬ 
ing the pigment azurite that was 
applied over the light gray layer. The 
clouds were worked up with gray or 
cream-colored paint. In the shaded parts 
of the clouds, the warm ground shows 
through the scumbles of lighter paints. 

The landscape was painted directly 
on the ground. The paint for the sand 
contains ochers and lead white. The 
X-radiograph and IRR revealed two 
rounded forms on the left horizon that 
resemble low hills. 

The painting has a fine mechanical 
crackle pattern with some lifting of 
paint along the cracks. However, the 
lining set down the cracks and flattened 
the paint to some degree. 


Adriaen van de Velde, TheBeach atScheveningei 

Fig. TR30.2 Infrared reflectogram 

Fig. TR30.3 This well-preserved face of the man 
standing at right showcases the artist’s fine ability to 
paint expressive faces with a few strokes of paint. 

The painting has a number of condition 
issues. There is overall abrasion that 
is now toned and restored. The sky and 
clouds have considerable toning and 
restoration, but the beach scene appears 
in better condition. One can see the 
artist’s abilities in the dog and some of 
the other figures that are in good 
condition (fig. TR30.3). 

The signature and date were painted 
with dark brown paint over the already 
dried lighter-colored paint of the boat 
at lower left. The inscription is abraded 
and in part reinforced, but it is reliable. 
The varnish is relatively clear, even, and 
semiglossy. The surface coating fluor¬ 
esces a dense yellow-green and obscures 
some restoration. 


Adriaen van de Velde, TheBeach atScheveningei 

Esaias van de Velde 





Cottages and Frozen River, 1629 Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter 

Oil on paper, mounted on wood, M.2009.106.15 

8 % x 1314 in. (21.3 x 33.3 cm) 

Signed and dated lower left: E. V. VELDE 1629 


D ated 1629, Cottages and Frozen River is one of Esaias 
van de Velde's earliest landscapes painted using 
a restricted palette that mutes the local colors of 
individual figures and objects and integrates the compo¬ 
sition within an overall atmosphere and structure. Without 
actually representing snow, he suggests a cold, windy day 
shrouded by dark clouds and the dim light of the winter sun. 
His palette is limited to tones of reddish-brown and black 
with touches of green, gray, and white. Opaque, creamy 
white paint drawn sparingly over the reddish-brown under¬ 
paint captures the effect of the sky's reflections in the frozen 
river (see Technical Report). Touches of white on the side of 
the tree and fence posts hint at a recent light snow, while the 
light green of the fine branches foretells the coming spring. 

The winter landscapes of Van de Velde, one of the 
pioneers of Dutch naturalism, share compositional charac¬ 
teristics with his contemporary paintings, prints, and 
drawings of the dunes and rivers of Holland, which are 
characterized by a low horizon and a landscape organized 
according to a receding diagonal that suggests the natural 
progression into depth. In Frozen Canal and Farm Buildings of 
1615 (Museum der bildenden Kiinste, Leipzig, inv. no. G359), 
in which the horizon is still relatively high and local colors 
are still used. Van de Velde breaks the diagonal line of 
buildings in the center of the composition to open the view 
into the distance. There the recession of the frozen river 
can be gauged by the diminishing scale of the figures, build¬ 
ings, and trees. The evolution of the composition is evident 
in A Village in Winter, dated 1628 (private collection), 1 in 
which Van de Velde again divides the composition between 
a solid mass of buildings and the open sky with the motif 
of a footbridge connecting the two halves of the painting. 

By lowering the horizon, replacing local colors with a tonal 
palette, and simplifying the diagonal organization, he pro¬ 
duced a more naturalistic painting. 

Cottages and Frozen River, dated 1629, one year after 
A Village in Winter, marks a further development in Van de 
Velde's treatment of the composition. Here the rustic 
buildings seem to have settled into the landscape itself; 
a single tree breaks the silhouette of the buildings, marking 
the upper end of a diagonal met by the steeple of the distant 
church. As in his etching Farm to the Left of a Frozen River 
(1614), almost half of the composition is now dedicated to 
the sky. 2 On the right, the view across the ice to the distant 
church tower is unimpeded. By eliminating the bridge and 
other details that occupy the other paintings, he produced 
a more cohesive and seemingly uncontrived composition 
that relates closely to the etching. Rather than a bridge, here 

the branches of denuded bushes, extending across the 
center of the picture, create a subtle transition between 
foreground and distance, left and right. 

Van de Velde integrated his figures of ordinary country 
folk into the rustic landscape, where they appear to carry 
out their normal activities unselfconsciously. On the left, 
a woman leans on the lower half of the door, and a dog 
barks as a man with a walking stick and basket returns to 
the cottage, where a ramshackle outhouse is precariously 
positioned on the edge of the river. On the ice at the right, 
a man in a red jacket leans on a coif stick and listens intently 
to a man with a sled filled with kindling wood. 3 Behind 
them, figures walk into the distance as a man skates for¬ 
ward, balancing a long stick on his shoulder in case he should 
fall through the ice. Like the landscape itself, the figures 
appear to be an arbitrary slice of a larger reality. 

Typical of seventeenth-century artists. Van de Velde 
derived many of the motifs for his winter scenes from 
the medieval manuscript and print tradition of portraying 
series of the seasons or months. He did so, however, without 
allegorical purpose in the Carter painting, which has no 
related companion piece. 4 In 1629, the year he dated the 
Carter painting. Van de Velde produced a series of drawings 
of the twelve months, which represent the parallel continu¬ 
ation of the older tradition in the minor arts. 5 Judging from 
the many paintings of the local Dutch countryside in winter 
by Van de Velde, Hendrik Avercamp (see cat. no. 1), Aert 
van der Neer (see cat. no. 20), Jan van Goyen (1596-1656), 
and others, many of whom were influenced by the example 
of Pieter Bruegel the Elder (ca. 1525-1569), there was a popu¬ 
lar market for them in the seventeenth century. 

It is tempting to assign some of the appeal of these 
pieces to the unusually cold winters that northwestern 
Europe experienced beginning in the winter of 1564-65 and 
lasting until the mid-nineteenth century. The so-called 
Little Ice Age was a period of extremes, during which there 
were both very cold and mild winters and long periods of 
dry years alternating with wet ones. During the first quarter 
of the seventeenth century, the temperatures were very low, 
with bitter cold winters and heavy snow—the worst years 
were around 1600,1607-8, and 1621. By the second quarter 
of the seventeenth century, however, the winters were 
less severe. About 1629, the year of the Carter painting, the 
winters were normal to mild with little snow, possibly 
explaining Van de Velde's portrayal of the bare rather than 
snow-covered ground. 6 


Esaias van de Velde, Cottages and Frozen River 



Fig. TR31.1 Digital micrograph (loox magnifica¬ 
tion) of the frozen pond showing fibers of paper 
visible through thin ground and paint layers 

Fig. TR31.2 Infrared reflectogram 

Fig. TR31.3 Digital micrograph (25X magnification) 
of a section of the tree 

The painting is on medium-thick laid 
paper that is cream to beige in color but 
has been darkened by media from paints 
and varnish. The paper is mounted on 
a panel that is about Va inch thick 
and has no bevels. The paper support is 
approximately 14 th inch shy of the 
right side of the panel. The panel has 
a minor horizontal convex bow. 

The paper support has detached from 
the panel in a number of areas, causing 
small, shallow bubbles on the surface, 
which are not very noticeable. There are 
numerous small losses of the paper 
along the edges. 

The thin, light-colored ground, which 
does not entirely cover the paper fibers, 
has a warm appearance (fig. TR31.1). The 

infrared reflectogram (IRR) suggested 
many dark brushstrokes were part of 
an underdrawing that was allowed to be 
visible in the final composition. This 
technique was found in other Dutch 
landscapes in the Carter collection (fig. 

The painting style is direct, although 
Van de Velde used opaque as well as thin 
dark paints. The paint of the sky, con¬ 
taining at least lead white and smalt 
pigments, left reserves for the landscape, 
including the trunk of the tall tree and 
the roofs of the buildings. His brushy 
and open application allows the paper 
and ground to have a presence. The 
landscape was economically painted. 
First he applied translucent, dark, 
warm colors, and then he brushed out 
light colors over the dark underpaint¬ 
ing to suggest the brilliant reflection of 
the ice and snow. 

The tops of the trees and buildings were 
painted over the sky. On top of the 
landscape, the figures and objects were 
set in with thin dark paint that notes 
form and shadows; then local color was 
applied. The buildings on the left 
appear to have been built up in a similar 
way. However, the sunlit bell tower and 
landscape on the distant right were 
painted directly with local color. 1 The 
bushes in the center foreground are 
indicated with numerous freely painted 
short arcs (fig. TR31.3). Pigments not 
already mentioned include copper- 
based pigments in the greens, ochers, 
vermilion, and umber or green earth. 


Esaias van de Velde, Cottages and Frozen River 

The X-radiograph reveals no obvious 
pentimenti. The painting is in very 
good condition. The crackle pattern is 
not discernible. There are numerous 
small areas of restoration, especially 
along the horizon, which tone tiny 
losses caused by flaking. 

On the left side there appears to be some 
general toning of the sky and smoke. 
The upper part of the sky has some light 
restoration that contains zinc white. 

The signature was painted rather 
thickly with a dark, cool reddish color. 
The first two letters have some loss and 
restoration, and the third digit of the 
date is difficult to read. 

The painting may have been cleaned in 
the not too distant past, judging from 
appearances. It has a transparent 
varnish with appropriate saturation, 
and the varnish seems to be a natural 
resin, such as dammar. 


i For a discussion of the artist’s working methods 
over much of his career, see Gifford 1998. 


Esaias van de Velde, Cottages and Frozen River 





Willem van de Velde 
the Younger 


Beach with Fishing Boats Gift of Mrs. and Mrs. Edward William Carter 

Pulled Up on Shore, ca. 1673 M.2009.106.16 

Oil on wood, 12% x i 6 ls /i 6 in. 

(31.4 x43 cm) 

Signed lower center, on a piece of driftwood: WVV 


W illem van de Velde the Younger evokes the 

cold, windswept beaches of the North Sea with 
the smooth application of subtle tones of beige, 
brown, and gray paint. Reflections of light from the 
shrouded sun in the foreground create the impression of 
wet sand, while in the distance the sailboat propelled across 
the horizon beneath scudding clouds suggests the strong 
wind of the North Sea. 

The compositional simplicity and intimacy of Beach 
with Fishing Boats Pulled Up on Shore are striking. Turning 
away from the sea itself. Van de Velde focuses on the beach. 

A wooden jetty projecting into the sea and slicing across 
the picture plane restricts his view to the distance. A break 
in the weathered wood posts on the left, however, offers 
a glimpse of the distant sea that discretely extends the per¬ 
ception of depth within the picture. In the shelter of the 
groin, a weyschuit has been hauled onto the beach on wooden 
rollers; 1 other fishing boats are moored nearby, and a skiff 
has been pulled into the water. Painted in the same subtle 
earth tones, the figures and boats appear to be part of the 
natural landscape. In the center of the picture, two men— 
one seated on the sand, the other standing and looking out 
to sea—converse as a third walks along the edge of the 
water with a pole over his shoulder. Almost unnoticed in the 
foreground on the far right, a rowboat transports passen¬ 
gers to shore from a ship anchored at sea. 

The naturalness of the Carter painting suggests an 
arbitrary moment directly observed by someone on the 
beach. Van de Velde initially recorded the scene in a graphite 
and wash drawing he inscribed on the back, “voor de helder, 
woonsdach den 20 Meij 1665” (before Den Helder, Wednesday, 
20 May 1665) (National Maritime Museum, Greenwich, 
London, inv. no. PAF6823). 2 Working in his studio perhaps 
as many as eight years later, he manipulated the scene in the 
drawing for the painting, strengthening and carefully 
distributing the accents of light and dark. By shortening 
and reinforcing the long, broken groin depicted in the 
drawing, he transformed it into a dark horizontal element 
that forcefully thrusts into the sea, confining his focus 
and obscuring all but the masts of oceangoing ships in the 
distance. He further refined and balanced the original 

composition by carefully placing the rowboat and figures 
on the right and the seemingly arbitrarily tossed anchor and 
wood on the left side of the beach. He also adjusted the 
masts of the boats on the near side of the groin so that they 
tilt at different angles. 

Van de Velde's inscription on the drawing identifies 
the location of the scene as the view from Den Helder across 
the Marsdiep to the island of Texel. The Marsdiep was 
a favorite anchorage for the fleets of large merchant and 
battleships seeking temporary refuge from the North Sea. 
Wooden groins extending into the sea were common along 
the coast of Den Helder, the northernmost point of the 
Dutch mainland. Hans Buijs has convincingly suggested 
that Van de Velde went to Marsdiep during the first days of 
May 1665 to await the departure of the Dutch fleet for which 
his father was to serve as a draftsman-reporter. 3 Under 
the command of Jacob, baron van Wassenaer Obdam (1610- 
1665), the fleet had assembled in preparation for the attack 
on the English. It finally departed on 23 and 24 May, 
confronting the English on 13 June. 4 While waiting with his 
father, the younger artist made a number of drawings of the 
fleet as well as scenes of the beach with small fishing vessels. 

Michael Robinson has suggested that Van de Velde 
painted the Carter picture in the London studio of his father 
in about 1673, eight years after the initial drawing. The 
somewhat chunky figures suggest that it was painted after 
the 1672 death of his brother Adriaen van de Velde (see cat. 
no. 30), who painted elegant staffage for many of Willem's 
paintings. This later date is also supported by the inclusion 
of the “double prince” ensign on the stern of the sloop. 

The six-striped flag was first used by Cornelis Tromp (1629- 
1691) in 1673. 5 

Van de Velde depicted the same location in another 
painting. Beach Scene (Fondation Custodia, Collection Frits 
Lugt, Paris, inv. no. 285), which shares with the Carter 
painting a similar blond tonality. 6 That painting was proba¬ 
bly painted earlier, closer in date to the actual event. In 
comparison with the Paris picture, the Carter composition 
is more focused and expresses the quiet mood that Willem's 
later paintings share with those by his brother Adriaen. 


Willem van de Velde the Younger, Beach with FishingBoats Fulled Up on Shore 



Fig. TR32.1 Infrared reflectogram 

The panel is planar. It is approximately 
Va inch thick with no bevels. The height 
of the left side is 14 th inch greater than 
the right, and the width of the panel 
is Msth inch wider at the bottom than at 
the top. The reverse has been coated 
with thin brown paint. The upper edge 
of the panel is slightly wavy, and there is 
a knot at the center of the bottom edge 
with a l-inch vertical crack. There are 
some insect holes, particularly along the 
lower part of the panel. 

A fairly thin light pink ground covers 
the panel. The artist brushed in the 
design and shadows with a dark paint 
that infrared reflectography (IRR) 
recorded (fig. TR32.1). The ground 
appears very reflective in infrared, indi¬ 
cating that it probably contains calcium 
carbonate. A number of finely brushed 

lines done in gray or dark brown appear 
dark in IRR but are also visible in 
normal light. This makes it difficult to 
confirm that they are actually under¬ 
drawn. However, some of these lines do 
have paint applied over them. It seems 
most likely that the lines are part of the 
sketch or initial laying-in of the 
composition and were intended to be 
seen in the final painting, a technique 
also noted in works by Esaias van de 
Velde (cat. no. 31), Salomon van Ruysdael 
(cat. nos. 27,28), and other landscape 
painters in the Carter collection. 

Brushstrokes from the first layers of 
paint and/or from the ground applica¬ 
tion are visible on the paint surface. The 
artist applied a thin layer of very light 
bluish-gray paint containing at least the 
pigments azurite and black over the 
ground for the sky that may or may not 
extend to some parts of the water. He 
developed the clouds with white- and 
gray-colored paints. The bright blue 
sky, containing the blue pigment smalt 
and lead white, skirts around the shapes 
of the clouds. 

The beach scene was brushed in with a 
dark warm-colored paint that is 
partially visible as part of the design. 
Forms were then developed using local 
color directly applied in thin to thick 
applications. The warm tone beneath 
can be seen in the shadow areas. Glazes 
enrich the shadows. The jetty, for 
example, was sketchily painted with 
local color over a warm tone, intention¬ 
ally left visible, but perhaps more 
visible today because of some abrasion 
of the surface. The two figures in the 
foreground at left center clearly show 
this treatment as well (fig. TR32.2). 

The right side of the seascape was 
painted more directly with thicker paints 
than the left side, probably to capture 
the effect of a stronger light on the sea 
and sand. The figures, boats, and sea 
were painted at the same time, with the 
artist working back and forth. The final 


Willem van de Velde the Younger, Beach with FishingBoats Fulled Up on Shore 

Fig. TR32.2 Detail with two men in front of boats 
and jetty. A thin, dark, warm tone is perceptible 
beneath the opaque local color and on top of the 
pinkish ground. 

Fig. TR32.3 Detail of the right side of the painting 
with a man walking, showing how the whites of the 
breakers are painted on either side of his head, and 
his head is painted over the boat 

colors of the boat, the man walking, 
and the whitest crests of the waves abut 
one another; however, the head of 
the man was painted over the nearly 
completed boat (fig. TR32.3). The beach 
was painted with thin to thicker paints 
containing ochers and white pigments. 
The boat masts were painted with beige- 
colored paint over the sky. The artist 
signed with dark paint on the firm paint 
of the plank lying on the beach at center. 

Ultraviolet examination showed two 
campaigns of restoration: over the var¬ 
nish, where there are numerous small 
restorations in the central sky and 
on the edges of the painting that appear 
very dark; and beneath the varnish, 
where less-obvious, small restorations 
are scattered overall and include 
toning of the grain of the wood. The 
X-radiograph shows a 14-inch loss to 
the jetty located above and to the left of 
the standing man's hat. The signature 
is abraded but extant; it has some dots 

of reinforcement. For about Vz inch into 
the painting along the right edge, the 
paint was disturbed before it was firm. 
This is most noticeable in the flag on 
the rowboat. 

The picture reads well, but discolored 
varnish strongly fluoresces yellow 
in ultraviolet light. The varnish does 
not saturate well, and there is blanching 
in the area of the blue hat, which 
may have more to do with the paint 
than the varnish. 


Willem van de Velde the Younger, Beach with FishingBoats Fulled Up on Shore 





Willem van de Velde 
the Younger 


and workshop 

A Yacht and Other Vessels in a Calm, 1671 Gift of Mr - and Mrs. Edward William Carter 

Oil on canvas, 131/4 x 171/4 in. M.2009.106.17 

(33-7X43-8 cm) 

Signed and dated lower right, on plank in water: 1 


H er sails and flags fluttering in a light breeze, 

a yacht glides quietly toward the open sea, across 
the still water of a harbor crowded with vessels. 
The sharp wedge of blue slicing through the sky suggests 
the departure of storm clouds that have cast the foreground 
in shadow, leaving a calm sea after a brief morning shower. 
On the heels of the storm, the sun floods the distance with 
cool white light, while in the shadows of the foreground 
it illuminates the yacht's sail and stern, casting their reflec¬ 
tions on the gently rippling water. Welcoming the depar¬ 
ture of the storm, the crew of the kaag directly behind 
the yacht raises the sails, 2 while in the shallows in the right 
foreground men prepare to hoist the lowered masts of 
a fishing boat. Aligned with the horizon, its deck forms the 
base of a visual triangle for which the mast of the yacht 
marks the peak. 

Willem van de Velde the Younger portrayed the yacht 
from the starboard side at a three-quarter angle so that it is 
easily identified. 3 The crest of the Dutch East India Company 
(Verenigde Oostindische Compagnie, VOC) appears on the 
tafferel between two round ports of the brightly illumi¬ 
nated stern. The M located below the point of the V indicates 
that the yacht belongs to the Middelburg chamber of 
the VOC. On the rail above the VOC crest are the arms of 
Zeeland (red lion half emerged from blue and white waves) 
with lion supports; the inscription reads “luctor et emergo” 
(I am struggling but will prevail). 4 Located in the southern 
delta region at the mouth of the Scheldt River, the cities 
of Zeeland, including Vlissingen, Middelburg, and Veere, 
had long been centers of trade between England and 
Flanders. Their importance grew after the blockade of 
Antwerp in 1585 and the formation of the VOC in 1602, when 
Middelburg, the capital of Zeeland, was made one of the six 
chambers of the VOC, the most important after Amsterdam. 
Established by the Dutch government but financed by 
stockholders who shared both the risks and the profits, the 

company was granted a monopoly over trade with Asia.^ 

The individual chambers were administered locally but 
overseen by the Heeren XVII (Gentlemen Seventeen), which 
consisted of eight directors from Amsterdam, four from 
Zeeland, and one each from the cities of Enkhuizen, Hoorn, 
Delft, and Rotterdam. An additional director rotated between 
Zeeland and the other smaller chambers. 

On board the yacht, gentlemen in black hats and white 
cravats casually gather while sailors steer the boat toward 
the open water. As officers of the Middelburg chamber 
of the VOC, they had use of the company yacht for private as 
well as official business. A comfortable mode of transporta¬ 
tion, yachts could be sailed on inland waterways and in 
relatively calm weather on the North Sea. The Carter paint¬ 
ing includes no land reference to identify the location of the 
harbor; the identity of the yacht, which was probably based 
on an actual vessel, was apparently sufficient. Although 
Van de Velde kept close to a compositional sketch made from 
life in painting Beach with a Fishing Boats Pulled Up on Shore 
(cat. no. 32), here he based the individual vessels on draw¬ 
ings but carefully staged them to create a serene impression. 

In A Yacht and Other Vessels in a Calm , Van de Velde balan¬ 
ced the major vessels on either side of the composition, 
providing a view to the distant horizon through the center 
across the still water. He had begun painting “calms” by 
1653, shortly after he returned to Amsterdam from Weesp, 
where he had studied with Simon de Vlieger (cat. no. 34). It 
was De Vlieger who had first developed the subject of calms, 
which perfectly suited the new classical aesthetic that 
replaced Baroque movement with balanced monumentality. 
De Vlieger probably introduced the young artist to the 
compositional format that he frequently adopted in, for 
example. Low Tide (fig. 33.1). From his teacher. Van de Velde 
also learned to combine soft lighting and atmospheric 
effects with carefully observed reflections that animate the 
calm sea. The young artist thus developed an individual 


Willem van de Velde the Younger, Beach with FishingBoats Fulled Up on Shore 

style that differed significantly from the precise documen¬ 
tary drawings and grisailles of ships and sea battles 
produced by his father, Willem van de Velde the Elder (ca. 

The gray tonality of the Carter painting is typical of 
works painted by Willem van de Velde the Younger for the 
Van de Velde studio in 1671-72. Although he was by then 
creating paintings on his own, he was still participating in 
the activity of the large workshop that produced paintings 
based on the drawings of sea battles the elder Van de Velde 
drew from life as well as from images based on popular 
models. The composition of A Yacht and Other Vessels in a Calm 
is, for example, closely related to A Calm: A States Yacht under 
Sail Close to the Shore with Many Other Vessels (Royal Collection 
Trust, London, inv. no. RCIN 405328). Michael Robinson 
pointed to slight errors in the drawing of some of the vessels 
in the distance in the Carter painting—including the 
square sail on the vessel in the center distance—suggesting 
that this was painted by Willem van de Velde the Younger 
with substantial help from the studio. 6 Recent examination 

of the painting has also revealed a mistake in the descrip¬ 
tion of the insignia of the Dutch East India Company: 
rather than oVc, the insignia appears as cVo. Robinson also 
noted that the same yacht appears in A Dutch East India 
Company's Yacht Firing a Salute near the Shore (with Leonard 
Koetser Gallery, London, 1973), where it appears in reverse. 7 
It is possible that the same drawing was used for both 
paintings but flipped; this could explain the confused 
insignia and imply a greater participation of the studio in 
the completion of the painting. 

A Yacht and Other Vessels in a Calm was probably painted 
for one of the officers of the Middelburg chamber of the 
VOC, who would at times have been a passenger on the yacht. 
Although a contemporary engraving after a picture of 
a pleasure yacht by Dirck Evertsz. Lons (ca. 1599-after 1666) 
bears the caption, “The profits gained from shipping are 
often squandered on sailing,” there is little reason to think 
that either the artist or his patron thought of the painting 
as anything other than a celebration of the prosperity of the 
chamber and the patron's proud association with it. 8 


Willem van de Velde the Younger, Beach with FishingBoats Fulled Up on Shore 

Fig- 33-1 

Fig. 33.1 Simon de Vlieger, Low Tide, ca. 1652. 

Oil on panel, 26% x 35 Yz in. (67x90 cm). 

Musee des Beaux-Arts de Strasbourg (inv. no. 434) 


Willem van de Velde the Younger, Beach with FishingBoats Fulled Up on Shore 



Fig. TR33.1 Digital micrograph (200X magnifica¬ 
tion) showing grounds and paint layers 

The support is a medium-fine, plain- 
weave canvas that is lined to a similar 
canvas with an aqueous adhesive. 

The current stretcher is larger than the 
original painting; the original painted 
image measures viYz by 15% inches 
(31.8 by 39.7 cm). The original tacking 
margins have been removed from the 
left side and the bottom. The left side is 
cut evenly, but the bottom is a little 
wavy with a few small losses. The top 
and right side may retain slivers of 
original tacking margins, which are 
unevenly cut, folded out, filled with 
a white material, and painted to match 
the design. 

A thick, dark red ground covers the 
canvas, and a gray ground is on top (fig. 
TR33.1). Infrared reflectography (IRR) 
found no underdrawing. 

The ground and paint of this painting 
have more body and opacity than other 
pictures in this catalogue. The painting 
technique seems less dependent on 
optical mixing through layering than 
on a substantial application of local 
color. Van de Velde the Younger applied 
a light blue-gray layer of paint on the 
ground for much of the sky and then 
applied a thin layer of blue paint on top 
(fig. TR33.2). Both blue layers contain 
smalt, but the bluest areas also appear 
to contain the pigment ultramarine. 
The clouds were worked up with 
opaque, pasty paints of local color. 

The water has an initial gray paint layer. 
Over this the artist painted the darker 
and lighter tones for the shadows and 
highlights of the waves. Lead-white, 
smalt, and carbon-black pigments were 
identified in the silvery water in the 
foreground. The X-radiograph indi¬ 
cated that the ships 5 sails were painted 
over the paint of the sky, while the hulls 
of the boats had a reserve. 

The X-radiograph and IRR show that 
the large central sail was originally 
more upright and slightly larger. The 
boats in the distance on the right side 
appear a little fuzzy in IRR, which may 


Willem van de Velde the Younger, Beach with FishingBoats Fulled Up on Shore 

Fig. TR33.2 Detail of the sky at upper left showing 
the blue-gray paint layer beneath the blue layer 

indicate that the artist made some 
changes in this area. This may also be 
due to abrasion, although no resto¬ 
ration was visible in ultraviolet light. 

The painting is signed and dated in 
black paint applied wet-in-wet in 
the dark brown paint of the plank. The 
signature is in good condition. 

Ultraviolet light revealed a horizontal 
restoration of a probable scratch 
approximately 4 to 5 inches long at top 
center. There are also a number of small, 
scattered restorations. The top and right 
edges of the painting have been 
repainted. The varnish is clear, even, 
and fairly saturating. In ultraviolet 
light the varnish has a warmish 
fluorescence that becomes greenish in 
the lower center. 


Willem van de Velde the Younger, Beach with FishingBoats Fulled Up on Shore 


Simon de Vlieger 


View of a Beach, 1646 

Oil on canvas, 34^6 x 53 14 in. 

(87.2 x 135.9 cm) 

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter 



Signed and dated lower right: SDE VLIEGER 1646 




S imon de Vlieger's View of a Beach is one of the largest 
and most impressive seventeenth-century depictions 
of a Dutch beach. A uniquely Dutch subject that 
combines broad expanses of sky and sea with anecdotal 
images of local fishermen hauling their boats ashore and 
selling their catch, independent beach scenes first appeared 
at the beginning of the seventeenth century, having pre¬ 
viously served as the setting for such biblical subjects as 
Joachim Beuckelaer's (ca. 1534-ca. 1574) The Miraculous 
Draught of Fishes, dated 1563 (The J. Paul Getty Museum, Los 
Angeles, inv. no. 71.PB.59), and such historical events as 
the embarkation of Frederick V, elector Palatine in 1613 or 
the stranding of a whale. 1 By the 1630s, the sea painter 
De Vlieger and others had turned their attention to the 
everyday activities of the Dutch shoreline. 2 Typically, De 
Vlieger's pictures depict people from different social groups 
gathered on the beach: the fishermen for whom the beach 
was their natural habitat, the townsmen who came to 
purchase fish, and the elegant visitors who sought refresh¬ 
ment and entertainment. 

Probably not showing a specific historical event, the 
Carter painting represents the departure of the Dutch fleet. 3j 
The event was greeted with great excitement, drawing 
people from all walks of life to the beach. At the far left 
a fisherman, a hunter, and gentlemen—one of whom is 
seated on his red cloak looking through a telescope—have 
climbed the dune to get a better view of the large fleet that 
stretches far into the distance. Two large ships lying at 
anchor just offshore are turned toward the open sea in prepa¬ 
ration to sail. The red flag at the stern of the ship closest 
to shore and the big red, white, and blue flag flown from its 
mainsail indicate that it is commanded by the admiral of 
the fleet. 4 The ship's unfurled sails and the men scurrying 
about on deck suggest that the cannon salute is announcing 
the fleet's imminent departure. 

The scene depicts the roadstead at Texel, an island in 
the North Sea where the Dutch fleet assembled before 
sailing to the Indies or into battle. 5 The dark line on the 
distant horizon is probably Den Helder on the Dutch 
mainland across the Marsdiep from Texel. 6 The roadstead, 
located on the eastern side of Texel, was a stretch of beach 
punctuated by jetties where ships could anchor to let people 
and cargo go ashore and to load new supplies and people 
on board. 8 

De Vlieger used a dark shadow cast by the dunes to 
frame the beach, where people of high and low social 
standing mingle. The activity surrounding the arrival and 
departure of the fleet takes place amid the normal activity of 
the shore, where fishermen have beached their boats and 
spread fish out on the sand to sell to the local villagers. In 
the center of the composition, at the water's edge, men and 
women gesture toward a boat transporting passengers from 
one of the large ships to the beach. Evidently impatient 

with the skiff's pace, a passenger climbs over the side of 
the boat to be carried ashore, while another wades through 
the water with a woman on his back. On the left, closer to the 
foreground, men load a wagon as a couple embraces in 
the shadow of the dune, their affection echoed by the two 
nuzzling drafthorses. A second wagon facing the sea appears 
to be unloading supplies. To the right of the wagons, sailors 
talk to two gentlemen and a woman with a page. A grey¬ 
hound sitting next to them identifies them as members of 
the gentry, who kept the sleek dogs for hunting and also as 
pets. Farther to the right, two more greyhounds accompany 
a gentleman on horseback who seems to have just arrived. 

A prolific draftsman, De Vlieger derived his amusing 
anecdotal staffage from drawings he sketched directly from 
life. 8 Executed in either chalk or pen and ink, his rapid 
sketches of individuals and groups of people as well as 
broader views of the activity on the beach and the adjacent 
land served as inspiration and direct sources for types 
of people and compositions rather than true preliminary 
sketches for his paintings. De Vlieger was particularly 
sensitive to the expressions and physical attitudes of ani¬ 
mals as well as people—the alert greyhounds, for example, 
appear in two etchings, and stocky workhorses are the 
subject of others. 9 Infrared evidence of underdrawing and 
pentimenti indicate that he composed directly on the 
canvas based on ideas developed from his individual sketches 
(see Technical Report). 

Jan Kelch has suggested the direct influence of the 
painting by Adam Willaerts (1577-1664) Warships off the Coast 
withaFishmarketon the Beach (fig. 34.1). 10 While De Vlieger 
undoubtedly knew this and similar works by Willaerts, the 
two paintings differ significantly in terms of space. Whereas 
Willaerts used dunes to frame, and thereby limit, the com¬ 
position, De Vlieger opened the foreground and achieved an 
impression of deep space that flows seamlessly to the 
distant horizon and extends beyond the width of the paint¬ 
ing. The carefully placed figures and ships contribute to 
his creation of an integrated composition that is absent in 
both Willaerts's paintings and De Vlieger's own earlier 

The extremely low horizon in the Carter painting 
leaves three-quarters of the painting to the sky. De Vlieger's 
careful placement of the fleet as well as of the figures on the 
beach suggests that he was consciously applying the rules 
of perspective to his composition to create the impression of 
depth and space. His study of perspective is documented 
by a sheet of studies signed and dated 1645 (fig. 34.2), the 
year before he finished the Carter painting. The sheet is 
divided into ten sections, each demonstrating the applica¬ 
tion of one-point perspective to different situations. 1 * 

De Vlieger represented buildings in only two drawings. His 
primary interest was in applying rules of perspective to 
landscapes and marines, subjects treated by Karel van Mander 


De Vlieger, View of a Beach 

(1548-1606) in Den grondt der edelvry schilder-const (1604) and 
by Philips Angel (ca. 1618-1664/65) in Lof der schilder-konst 
(1642). 12 Van Mander had advised artists “to pay heed to 
foreshortening and reduction as it appears in nature. Even 
if your subject is not architecture, which demands strict 
rules, you must know how to place your viewing or vanish¬ 
ing point accurately on the horizon—that is, on the surface 
of the water. Everything that is below it is seen from above, 
and the rest from below.” 13 In the Carter painting, the 
position of the viewer is suggested by the men standing on 
the dune at left. The line of the horizon is at their eye level. 

Like many of the contemporary sea painters, De Vlieger 
was fascinated by light effects. By 1643, when he painted 
Beach View (Mauritshuis, The Hague, inv. no. 558), his light 
had changed from the grayish tonality of his earlier paint¬ 
ings, influenced by the example of Jan Porcellis (see cat. no. 
22), to a silvery light that characterizes his later beach scenes 
and seascapes. De Vlieger's mastery of light effects is evident 
in the Carter painting, where opalescent light illuminates 
the sky and sea and reflects off the wet surface of the sand as 
well as off the glimmering skin of the fish. Broad shadows 
of clouds cast across the shimmering water help to define 
the progression to the horizon, where light and mist blur the 
division between sea and sky. At the same time the clouds 
and sea create a foil for the figures on the beach. Caught in 

bright sunlight, they cast long shadows across the sand. 
Conceived in terms of the sharp definition of light and dark, 
they recall the artist's pen and wash drawings. 

The large scale of the Carter painting suggests that De 
Vlieger painted it on commission, presumably for someone 
connected with the Dutch fleet. It may be the picture 
described as “een Tesselstrant [a Texel beach] van Jan de 
Vlieger” in the 1678 inventory of Johanna van den Bergh of 
Amsterdam and Achtienhoven made at the time of her 
marriage to her second husband, Justus van Sonsbeeck, 
schout (sheriff) of Actienhoven. 14 The document identifies 
her as the widow of Gerard Stijls, provost of the College of 
the Admiralty of Amsterdam. The possibility that De 
Vlieger painted ViewofaBeach for De Stijls is supported by 
the inclusion of the admiral's flag hoisted on the mainsail 
and the three Xs of the seal of Amsterdam on the stern of the 
large ship in the foreground, which may identify it as the 
Amsterdam. A spiegelretourschip , the most important type of 
transport ship in the seventeenth century, th t Amsterdam 
was built in 1631 at the Amsterdam docks for the Dutch East 
India Company (Verenigde Oostindische Compagnie, VOC). 
Between 1632 and 1648 it sailed around the Cape of Good 
Hope at least ten times from Texel to Batavia and from there 
to Hirado, Japan. 15 


De Vlieger, View of a Beach 

Fig. 34-1 

Fig. 34-2 

Fig. 34.1 Adam Willaerts (1577-1664), Warships 
off the Coast with a Fishmarket on the Beach, ca. 1620. 

Oil on panel, i8 7 /s x 41% in. (48 x 106 cm). 
Ashmolean Museum of Art and Archaeology, 
University of Oxford, bequeathed by Revd. Dr. John 
King, 1737 (inv. no. WA1845.9) 

Fig. 34.2 Simon de Vlieger, Studies of Perspective, 
1645. Pen and brown ink on paper, 12% x 8 % in. 
(32.1 x 21 cm). The British Museum, London, 
purchased from Charles Francis Arnold Howard, 

5 th Earl of Wicklow (inv. no. 1874,0808.99) 


De Vlieger, View of a Beach 



Fig. TR34.1 A detail of the IRR reveals a man with 
a dark hat seated next to the blonde woman in the 
final painting. He seems to be leaning toward her 
looking back at the cart or beach. He has his hand 
extended to rest on her arm. There may be another 
face in between this man and woman. 

The support is a plain-weave, fairly 
heavy canvas that is lined with an 
aqueous adhesive to a similar canvas 
mounted on a stretcher measuring 
36 by 54^ inches (91.4 by 138.4 cm). The 
remnants of the original tacking edges 
have been flattened and painted to 
extend the painting in each direction. 
The X-radiograph shows lines of paint 
loss where the tacking edges had been 
folded over an earlier stretcher. It also 
shows broad arcs that must have to 
do with the application of the ground, 
which is thick and pink, and contains, 
among other pigments, red ocher. 

De Vlieger layered paints, using glazes 
and scumbles to create the optical colors 
that extend the tonal range and 
heighten the realism of the sky and sea. 
He appears to have painted a light 
blue-gray layer over the ground for at 
least the sky and water. The translucent 
blue paint of the sky, which is colored 
primarily with smalt, was brushed over 
the blue-gray paint layer and around 

the general cloud forms. The clouds 
were built up with gray and lighter- 
colored paints that are mixtures of white 
and any of the following pigments: 
smalt, ochers (red, yellow, orange), and 
carbon black. The artist also applied 
glazes and scumbles to create nuances 
and darker grays over the painted 
clouds and adjacent blue sky. The light 
gray sky at the horizon consists of 
a layer of light blue paint thinly glazed 
with black. The horizon line is strongly 
visible in the X-radiograph, but it does 
not go under the large ships at the left 
or the sails at the right. 

The hill in the background on the right 
has yellowish glazes and thin green 
paint, which contains copper-based 
pigments such as azurite, over the blue- 
gray layer noted above. Yellow and 
pink glazes were applied over the same 
blue-gray layer to define the sea. De 
Vlieger used opaque local color and 
glazes to develop the figures. In the 
group of figures at the lower right, the 
sleeve of a woman standing with her 
back to the viewer is painted with 
violet-colored paint over a gray layer. 

Infrared reflectography (IRR) revealed 
extensive underdrawing and numerous 
pentimenti, indicating De Vlieger was 
changing and simplifying the composi¬ 
tion as he worked. 1 The underdrawing 
seems to have been done in different 
stages and with different materials. 
What appears to be black chalk or char¬ 
coal drawing (characteristically powdery 
and varying in width) was found in 
parts of the jetty and sea. The figures 
and animals, however, have more 
precise dark outlines that appear thin¬ 
ner and more solidly dark with tapering 
ends, suggesting they were drawn 
with a brush and carbon-black liquid 
medium. There is the possibility that 
the figures were outlined in roughly the 
same manner, and, once they had been 
refined with the brush, the chalk or 
charcoal was removed. All of the penti¬ 
menti have the same brushed outlines. 


De Vlieger, View of a Beach 

Fig. TR34.2 The IRR shows that either the man 
with a staff was moved or another man was 
originally placed close behind the horseman, only to 
be painted out later. There also appears to be 
another figure in the foreground in between the 
child and the red-skirted woman. 

There is a clear sense of recession in the 
size of the figures and boats as well 
as a type of symmetry in the overall 
composition that suggest De Vlieger 
may have used perspective guides. 
Although he is known to have applied 
the rules of one-point perspective to 
landscapes and seascapes, no perspec¬ 
tive lines were found in IRR. 2 

His use of dark washes in this painting 
is similar to his use of black chalk with 
dark gray washes in many of his 
drawings on paper. 3 For example, there 
are two male figures on the left near 
the nuzzling horses; one is between the 
two horses while the other is unloading 
the cart. Both figures have been out¬ 
lined and then developed with a carbon- 
black brushed wash. 4 Although both 
figures are partially hidden by the white 
horse that De Vlieger painted directly 
over them, their full figures are visible 
in IRR. 5 Additional legs associated 
with the horses hitched to the wagon 
and the pentimento of a wheel further 
indicate De Vliegers reconsidering 
the placement and relationship of the 
wagon and figures. 

Additional major pentimenti observed 
in IRR include a man with a hat seated 
next to the blonde woman (also with 
a hat), who is seated to the left of the 
wagon. In the IRR image, he is looking 
away from her but extends his hand 
in an intimate gesture to clasp her arm 
as it rests on her knee (fig. TR34.1). 

There may also be another face between 
and behind this man and woman. 

A female figure wearing a hat and bend¬ 
ing to look into a basket appears in 
IRR in front of the kissing couple on the 
left side of the painting. 

On the right, behind the two dogs, there 
is a man pulling a small boat that is now 
disguised as the shadow of the boat 
behind it. The dogs also appear to have 
been somewhat shifted in position. 
Behind and to the right of the horse¬ 
man on the right side of the painting 
there is another male figure that may 
represent an earlier placement of the 
man with a staff (which was shifted) to 
the right. Another figure also existed in 
between the child and the red-skirted 
woman, closer to the viewer (fig. TR34.2). 

Small changes in hats and positions 
were made to the two bearded men on 
the far right, the seated woman of the 
kissing couple, and the beached fishing 
boat on the far right side, above the 

The artist signed the painting with gray 
paint brushed into the semi-wet, 
cream-colored paint of the plank. 

The picture is in good condition. The 
surface has scattered pinpoint losses. 
Ultraviolet light showed scattered 
restorations, including restoration of 
a 4-inch tear just above the ship in the 
central distance and a 2-inch tear in 
the clouds above this ship. The painting 
has a clear saturating varnish, which 
appears to be a synthetic. 


1 The infrared reflectogram was captured using 
a i6oonm interference bandpass filter that 
gave a sharper image of the underdrawing and 

2 See Ruurs 1983 and discussion in art historical 

3 See C. P. van Eeghen 2011 and discussion in art 
historical entry. 

4 Further technical analysis would be necessary to 
determine if this wash is water-based or oil. 

5 Lead white is fairly transparent in IRR. 


De Vlieger, View of a Beach 


Emanuel de Witte 

Interior of the Nieuwe Kerk in Delft with Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward W. Carter 


the Tomb of William the Silent , 1653 M.2003.108.5 

Oil on wood, 32^ x 25% in. 


(82.6 x65.1cm) 


Signed and dated lower right, on the column: 


E • De Witte /Ao 1653 


O n 12 February 1614 the members of the States 

General awarded Hendrick de Keyser (1565-1621), 
Amsterdam's official sculptor, what would be the 
most important seventeenth-century sculpture commission 
in the Netherlands—the sepulchral monument for William 
the Silent (1533-1584), “the father of the fatherland.” 
Completed in 1622, the monumental tomb was installed in 
the place of the high altar in the apse of what had formerly 
been the Catholic church of Saint Ursula in Delft but which 
by then was the Protestant Nieuwe Kerk (New Church). 1 
William I, the prince of Orange and leader of the Dutch 
revolt against Spanish rule, had been murdered in Delft in 
1584. Unable to be buried in the family tomb in Breda, 
which was under Spanish control, his body was taken to 
Delft, where it was originally placed in a simple catafalque 
under a baldachin at the end of the north aisle. 2 

Emanuel de Witte depicted the tomb of William the 
Silent in at least six paintings, the earliest of which dates 
about 1649-50 and the last 1664. Here, in a painting dated 
1653, the viewer looks west from the ambulatory of the apse 
along the longitudinal axis of the church through the 
superstructure of the tomb of William the Silent. Framed 
by the massive columns of the ambulatory and the drape of 
a gold-fringed green satin curtain that restricts the view 
of the soaring vault of the church, it is De Witte's boldest 
composition. Light entering from the upper left through 
concealed clerestory windows illuminates the interior vault 
of the marble tomb, the recumbent effigy of the prince on 
his deathbed, and the columns and figures in the fore¬ 
ground. Defined by subtle variations in light and shadow, 
the massive columns assertively project forward, creating 
the impression of tangible space. There a man apparently 
engages a woman in conversation, and a young boy and two 
dogs are nearby. 

Originally a figure painter, De Witte integrated genre 
elements into his architectural compositions. Here the 
carefully positioned figures animate and help define space 
with their gestures: a brilliant red cape draped over his 
shoulder, an elegantly dressed man points toward the effigy 
of the prince lying in sunlight beneath the marble canopy of 
the tomb. As he turns toward a woman partially hidden 
by the column, the white feather in his hat repeats the line 

of his gesture. The placement of the sleek hunting dog 
and the spaniel lifting his leg contributes to the perception 
of space, which wraps around the columns into the dis¬ 
tance, where smaller figures appear on the periphery of the 

In contrast to his contemporary Gerard Houckgeest 
(ca. 1600-1661), whose oblique view of the tomb in a 1650 
painting of the subject invites the viewer to enter the picto¬ 
rial space of the church (Hamburger Kunsthalle, Hamburg, 
inv. no. HK-342), De Witte restricts that entrance. The iron 
railing designed by De Keyser to surround the monument 
stretches between the two columns and forms a barrier 
for both the viewer and the visitors to the tomb. Although 
the columns visible within the north side of the tomb 
appear to recede, the space beyond the railing seems oddly 
compressed. The spatial conflict is further complicated by 
the luxurious green satin drapery, which recalls the 
seventeenth-century practice of attaching curtains to the 
frames of paintings to protect them from the elements, 
as seen in De Witte's Portrait of a Family, dated 1678 (fig. 35.1). 
Gathered up and suspended from an unseen point, the 
curtain in the Carter painting appears to cast a shadow across 
the surface of the panel, emphasizing its two-dimensional 
quality and the double illusion of architecture and drapery. 

De Witte, Houckgeest, and Hendrick van Vliet 
(1611/12-1675), the three most prominent architectural 
painters in Delft, all used the device of a painted curtain in 
a number of paintings during the early 1650s. 3 Many of 
these include illusionistic metal railings seemingly attached 
to the frames. The device was first used by Rembrandt 
Harmensz. van Rijn (1606-1669) in his 1646 painting The 
Holy Family with a Curtain (Gemaldegalerie Alte Meister, 
Kassel, inv. no. GK 240) and, more significantly, in his 
etching Medea or the Marriage of Jason and Creusa, of 1648 (fig. 
35.2). There a curtain appears to have been pulled back 
along a rail suspended from the arch of a church ambulatory 
to reveal the service taking place. 4 In the Carter painting, 
in which the railing is absent, the use of the curtain likewise 
acknowledges the presence of the viewer, who is permitted 
to enjoy a privileged view. 5 Here, however, the shadow cast 
on the panel by the curtain reveals that the composition 
itself is an illusion. 


De Witte, Interior of the Nieuwe Kerin in Delft with the Tomb of William the Silent 

The trompe Toeil curtain was a well-known conceit 
connected to a story told by Pliny and referred to by Karel 
van Mander (1548-1611) in 1604 and by other contemporary 
Dutch writers. 6 According to Pliny, there was a competition 
between the painters Zeuxis and Parrhasius: Zeuxis pro¬ 
duced a picture of grapes so successfully represented that 
birds flew toward the picture; whereupon Parrhasius 
himself produced such a realistic picture of a curtain that 
Zeuxis, proud of the verdict of the birds, requested that the 
curtain should now be drawn and the picture displayed; 
and when he realized his mistake, with a modesty that did 
him honour, he yielded up the prize, saying that whereas he 
had deceived birds, Parrhasius had deceived him, an artist. 7 

De Witte painted Interior of the Nieuwe Kerk in Delft with 
the Tomb of William the Silent in 1653, a year after he moved 
from Delft to Amsterdam in 1652. The accuracy of his render¬ 
ing of the tomb and its setting indicates that he must have 
based the image on now-lost drawings and measurements 
he had made from life. Infrared reflectography reveals that 
De Witte drew the architecture directly on the prepared 
panel with a sharp instrument, probably a graphite pencil, 
using a straightedge and a compass (see Technical Report). 
At least one vanishing point, located on the left, served as 
a guide to his description of the space. Additional vanishing 
points may have been positioned on the exterior of the 
painting. X-radiography indicates that De Witte painted the 
architecture completely before painting the curtain over 
it and adding the staffage. The figure of the man in the red 
cape reappears in De Witte's paintin g Amsterdam Stock 
Market , also dated 1653 (Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, 
Rotterdam, loan from the Willem van der Vorm Foundation, 
1972, inv. no. VdV 91), suggesting that both were based on 
a now-lost drawing. 8 

There are more than fifty extant paintings of the 
Nieuwe Kerk with the tomb of William the Silent by De 
Witte and his contemporaries, as well as prints and even 
images on Delftware produced by contemporary artists 
in Delft, particularly after 1650. 9 The unfinished tomb of 
William the Silent was depicted in a fictional setting as early 
as 1620 by Bartholomeus van Bassen (ca. 1590-1652) with 
figures by Esaias van de Velde (1587-1630) (fig. 35.3), but 
interest in the monument grew after the sudden death of 
the stadtholder William II (1626-1650), the young prince 
of Orange, in November 1650 as he laid siege to Amsterdam, 
the seat of republican opposition to his political ambitions. 
The following March, Willem II was laid to rest with great 
fanfare in the tomb of his grandfather, where his father and 

uncle, the stadtholders Frederik Hendrik (1584-1647), 
prince of Orange, and Maurits (1567-1625), prince of Orange, 
were also interred. The monument, originally commis¬ 
sioned during the Twelve Years' Truce with Spain (1609-21), 
served as a symbol of the House of Orange and its political 
ambitions. 1 ^ 

The historical significance of William I as the founder 
of the Dutch Republic made the monument a popular 
tourist attraction for foreign as well as local visitors Joseph 
Taylor, a British traveler to the Netherlands, described the 
famous Delft monument, which he visited in September 1707: 

In [the New Church] I saw the most noble monument 
of the great William, Prince of Orange_It is a mau¬ 

soleum in the front of which is placed his effigies 
in brass, booted and spurred and sitting cross legged 
with his helmet at his feet. On each side of him in 
niches are two brazen [brass] figures of Liberty and 
Justice; behind this is his effigies again, lying at length 
in marble, his head placed on a pillow and at his feet 
lies a dog.... There is another figure of Fame in brass, 
blowing a trumpet, whose whole weight is supported 
by the great toe on which it is fixed, and two other 
figures, of Charity and Mercy (Religion and Valour), 
to answer those of Justice and Liberty. The frontispiece 
is supported by eight pillars of red (black) polished 
marble, but the capitals and pedestals are white, each 
side is adorned with several devices and inscriptions 
and the whole enclosed with a balustrade of iron J 

The tablet surmounting the tomb extols William I's 
accomplishments and records that it was erected specifically 
to serve as an eternal memorial of his merits, which were 
shared by the nation. 12 The virtues were not only his person¬ 
ally but also symbolic of the republic's political ideals. 

The figures of Religion and Liberty represent the causes for 
which the Dutch opposed Spanish rule. Early seventeenth- 
century political theory regarded Fortitude and Justice 
as the foundations of the state. 13 In one of his earliest depic¬ 
tions of the tomb, one strongly influenced by his contempo¬ 
rary Houckgeest, De Witte showed the monument from 
the northwest, focusing on the figure of Liberty holding her 
hat in her outstretched hand. The most frequently painted 
view of the monument, it emphasizes the virtue most often 
identified with the prince, who was praised for having liber¬ 
ated the country from the tyranny of Spain and for promoting 
religious freedom with Protestantism as the dominant faith. 


De Witte, Interior of the Nieuwe Kerin in Delft with the Tomb of William the Silent 

Fig- 35-1 

Fig- 35-2 

Fig. 35.1 Emanuel de Witte, Portrait of a Family, 1678. 
Oil on canvas, 27 x 34 Ys in. (68.5 x 86.5 cm). Alte 
Pinakothek Bayerische Staatsgemaldesammlungen, 
Munich (inv. no. FV2) 

Fig. 35.2 Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn (1606- 
1669), Medea or the Marriage of Jason and Creusa, 1648. 
Etching, 9 3 /s x 6 7 /s in. (24 x 17.6 cm). Rijksmuseum, 
Amsterdam, Mr. and Mrs. De Bruijn-van der Leeuw 
Bequest, Muri, Switzerland (inv. no. RP-P-1961-1049) 


De Witte, Interior of the Nieuwe Kerb in Delft with the Tomb of William the Silent 

The Carter painting is unique in focusing on the 
figure of Fame. The gesture of the gentleman, accentuated 
by his red cape, draws attention to Fame and to the illumi¬ 
nated effigy of William recumbent on his deathbed. In the 
shadows on the far side of the tomb, a man looking up at the 
statue of the seated prince dressed in armor similarly hints 
at his military role. The only other element of the tomb that 
is visible is the figure on the right, that of Fortitude (Valor). 

Arthur Wheelock suggested that the unexpected 
death of William II created a market for paintings of church 
interiors with explicit vanitas overtones. Paintings of the 
tomb of William the Silent were, he posited, significant 
as symbols of both the House of Orange and the inevitability 
of death. The association of tombs with death was made by 
De Witte's contemporary, the chronicler of Delft Dirck 
van Bleyswijck, who admonished his readers to visit tombs 
daily to reflect on death and the vanities of life. The monu¬ 
ment to William the Silent and his sons and young grandson 
was, as many noted, a clear indication that princes were 
also mortal. 14 

The interest in tombs does not, however, appear to 
have been primarily driven by religious concerns. By the mid¬ 
seventeenth century, tomb tourism was flourishing in the 
Netherlands. 15 Published travel guides, such as Jean-Nicolas 
de Parival's Les delices de la Hollande (Leiden, 1651), relate the 
history of individual towns and identify the important 
memorials to naval heroes and prominent citizens that had 
replaced the Catholic altars and statues of saints. 16 Tourists 

could also hire personal guides who took pride in recount¬ 
ing the accomplishments of local heroes. 17 Van Bleyswijck 
himself notes, “This work [the tomb of William the Silent] is 
as beautiful and elegant as is to be found anywhere, and 
many people come every day from far-flung foreign parts to 
view the same, being amazed not only by the elegance 
of the same, for those with an understanding of art are also 
astounded by the most excellent art employed therein.” 18 
Churches in Delft were open all day to accommodate the 
tomb tourists. 

The relatively large size of the Carter painting suggests 
that it was commissioned. 19 While the patron may have 
desired the painting as a statement of his pro-Orange senti¬ 
ments, which were particularly strong in The Hague and 
Delft about 1652-53, the presence of a painting of the tomb by 
De Witte in the inventory of Isaac Swartepaert, Amsterdam, 
in 1671 suggests that the paintings may have had broader 
appeal as a reference to the foundation of the Dutch 
Republic. 20 The focus of De Witte's painting on the figure of 
Fame rather than Liberty may indicate that the primary 
appeal of the painting was not political but honorary. 

As Walter Liedtke has suggested in relationship to a paint¬ 
ing by Houckgeest, it should be seen as “a celebration of the 
birth of a nation and as a remembrance of its father-figure.''^ 
By framing the subject with the beautiful tromp l'oeil 
painted curtain, De Witte identifies himself with Parrhasius, 
and by signing his name prominently in red paint in the 
form of scrajitti on the column at the right, he proclaims his 
own fame. 


De Witte, Interior of the Nieuwe Kerin in Delft with the Tomb of William the Silent 

Fig. 35-3 

Fig. 35.3 Bartholomeus van Bassen (ca. 1590-1652), 
Interior ofan Imaginary Church with the Tomb of William 
the Silent, 1620. Oil on canvas, 44 Vs x 59% in. 

(112 x 151 cm). Szepmuveszeti Muzeum, Budapest 
(inv. no. 1106) 


De Witte, Interior of the Nieuwe Kerk in Delft with the Tomb of William the Silent 



Fig. TR35.1 The reverse of the panel shows joins 
between the three boards that were later repaired 
with butterfly cleats. A cradle was once adhered 
to the reverse at the locations of the small squares. 

Fig. TR35.2 The underdrawing, visible in the IRR, 
shows that the artist used drafting tools to create an 
accurate perspective. Blue indicates parallel lines 
of underdrawing. Red indicates a compass was used 
to draw arches of various sizes. Yellow shows 
diagonal lines that converge at a single vanishing 
point. Diagram by Silviu Boariu, Objects Conservator, 

The panel is composed of three vertical 
boards of different widths: the board on 
the left is 9M6 inches; the middle board 
is 8 % inches; and the board on the right 
is 7 9 /i 6 inches wide. The panel is Va inch 
thick and beveled. Joins have been 
repaired with fills and butterfly cleats. 
Ghosts of horizontal and vertical 
members of a former cradle are visible 
on the reverse (fig. TR35.1). The panel is 
near planar and in stable condition. 

The upper left and lower right corners 
have been restored with very small 
pieces of wood. Paint along the top edge 
of the picture is jagged. The bottom 
edge appears totally intact. The state of 
the left and right sides, where Va- inch 
strips of wood have been attached, 
requires further investigation. 

The panel has a thin white ground over 
which there may be a second thin warm 
ground or an imprimatura. The 
painting was extensively underdrawn, 
as is apparent in the infrared reflecto- 
gram (IRR) (fig. TR35.2). 1 The lines of 
the underdrawing are solidly dark and 
sharp, each is fairly uniform in width 
along its length, but some differ very 
slightly in width. This suggests the use 
of a drawing instrument such as 
graphite pencil or metalpoint. Either of 
these implements would wear down 
with use—the line becoming slightly 
wider as the drawing progressed—until 
they were resharpened by the artist. 2 

The underdrawing was worked out 
directly on the panel, not transferred 
from another drawing. IRR revealed 
many perspective guidelines that De 

Witte covered with paint once they had 
served their function. For instance, he 
used diagonal and horizontal perspec¬ 
tive lines to correctly place the receding 
square tiles in a diamond orientation; 
these lines are not part of the “real” 
architecture, so he covered them with 
the white and dark gray paint used for 
the floor tiles. 

IRR also revealed that drafting tools 
were used. The underdrawn horizontal 
lines in the tiled floor and background 
architecture (marked in blue in fig. 
TR35.2) are perfectly parallel to each 


De Witte, Interior of the Nieuwe Kerin in Delft with the Tomb of William the Silent 

Fig. TR35.3 X-radiograph with blue showing the 
architecture that had been painted over by the 
curtain and red indicating the man with the red cape 

Fig. TR35.4 IRR detail showing that the 
underdrawn lines pass beneath the architecture and 
the figures 

other. This would be very difficult to 
achieve if just a straightedge were used, 
suggesting that the underdrawing was 
probably done using a T square or 
similar instrument. Additionally, the 
underdrawing shows that the arches are 
part of a true circle, suggesting the use 
of a compass. 3 The diagonal lines 
leading to the vanishing point located 
below center left, where the male figure 
is pointing, were probably made with 
a straightedge. De Witte also drew 
freehand to finish up the lines he had 
made with drafting tools; for instance, 
he extended the curves of some arches 
or continued a straight line as it bent to 
make a corner in the architecture. 

One of the most surprising finds revealed 
in the X-radiograph (fig. TR35.3) and 
IRR is that the architecture beneath the 
painted curtain not only was under¬ 
drawn but was also developed in paint. 
This suggests that the curtain was 
added after the architecture. The under¬ 
drawing extends only to the right side 
of the left-hand white column, but it is 
detailed and complete. Comparison 
with the X-radiograph revealed the 
highlights for the large left column and 
for the white column behind it on the 
extreme left side, in addition to the 
column on the right side, which con¬ 
tinue up under the curtain. Additionally, 
both of the two black obelisks of the 
tomb were painted with carbon black 
before the green curtain was added. 

In general, the IRR and X-radiograph 
suggest a very systematic technique: 
the architecture was underdrawn first, 
then the figures were drawn in, after 
which the architecture was painted, and 
finally the figures were painted in. The 
underdrawn lines of the architecture lie 
beneath the figures, as does the carbon- 
black paint used for the architecture 
(fig. TR35.4), and in the X-radiograph 
the painted base of the two dark 
columns of the tomb is visible through 
the man with the red cape. 

Paints range from thin and translucent 
medium-rich darks to opaque and pasty 
light colors. The artist painted wet- 
over-dry and blended wet-into-wet in 


De Witte, Interior of the Nieuwe Kerin in Delft with the Tomb of William the Silent 

Fig. TR35.5 Detail of foreground, right side, to 
show brushstrokes in column and floor 

the same layer of application. Brush¬ 
strokes can be seen to follow form in the 
painting, giving volume and weight 
especially to the architecture. This 
is especially evident in the curtain and 
foreground columns. On the right 
foreground column, for example, brush¬ 
strokes curve diagonally around the 
cylinder of the column, and vertical 
strokes describe each fiat facet of its base 
(fig. TR35.5). The floor has long, 
horizontal strokes, and some individual 
black-and-white tiles have diagonal 

The stiff bristles of the brushes left 
grooves in the pasty paint; the thinner 
paint of the grooves allows colors 
beneath to optically mix with the upper 
layers. Thus, the different layers of 
white to gray paint composing the 

foreground columns visually mix in the 
eye, suggesting the stone's natural 
variety of color. In the shadowed areas 
of the columns, where whitish paint 
was thinly applied, a dull light pink 
color, possibly the second ground or 
imprimatura, shows through. 

To paint forms over the architecture, 

De Witte first applied an opaque middle 
tone to cover the paint beneath and 
then worked up the image over it. For 
example, the curtain has a light green 
paint layer on top of the architecture. 
The middle tone contains primarily 
green-earth and lead-white pigments, 
which did a good job of covering 
the painted architecture. The final rich 
green color of the curtain and the 
shadows were achieved with a dark 
green glaze identified as copper 
resinate. The paint for the yellow fringe 
of the curtain contains lead-tin yellow. 

The flesh of the figures was painted 
first with a pinkish middle-tone color 
that was worked up with highlights 
and shadows (fig. TR35.6). The artist 
adjusted forms as he painted. For 
example, the backs of each of the two 
dogs were adjusted with the white paint 
of the column base; this adjustment 
with white paint is just visible to the 
unaided eye. 

The signature is strengthened, but the 
faint original inscription is intact. The 
last c is totally original. Parts of the 
A, 6 , and 5 and the upper right of the 
3 are strengthened. 


De Witte, Interior of the Nieuwe Kerin in Delft with the Tomb of William the Silent 

Fig. TR35.6 Detail of woman to right of man in red 
cape, showing the buildup of flesh colors in her face 

The condition of the painting is good. 
Ultraviolet light shows thin lines of 
restoration along the joins and some 
smaller restorations scattered overall. 
There is also restoration along the 
edges. Some areas of light-colored 
paint, for example the relief above the 
double columns, contain tiny bubbles 
or craters that were identified as lead 
soaps. The surface of the painting has 
a few scattered shallow dents, and there 
are numerous bumps in the green cur¬ 
tain. The painting was lightly cleaned 
and restored at LACMA in 2000, when 
varnishing with a natural resin helped 
to saturate the dark colors. 


1 The IR reflectogram was made using a 1600 inter¬ 
ference bandpass filter. 

2 A pen line would be uniform in width except 
where the direction was changed and the nib 
angled differently. A wet, brushed line would 
waver in thickness and have a tapering-off at the 
end and perhaps a concentration of black where 
the brush first touched the panel. Charcoal and 
black chalk have a crumbly or powdery 
appearance. The characteristics of pen, brush, 
charcoal, or chalk are not found in this 

3 Some of the arches have very small physical marks 
at their centers (visible in the X-radiograph) that 
may be indentations from the compass. Our 
thanks to Silviu Boariu, Associate Objects 
Conservator at LACMA, for his discoveries, which 
suggest De Witte’s use of measuring tools. 


De Witte, Interior of the Nieuwe Kerin in Delft with the Tomb of William the Silent 


Emanuel de Witte 


Interior of the Oude Kerk, Amsterdam, Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter 

Jgl-p] M.2009.106.18 

Oil on wood, 18 14 x 22^6 in. 


(46.4 x56.4 cm) 


Signed and dated lower center, on the edge of the 


lifted paving stone: E. De WIT [illegible] 65 [illegible] 


J 'nteriorof the OudeKerk, Amsterdam is one of at least thirty- 
eight paintings in which Emanuel de Witte depicted 
the historic church from different vantage points. 1 The 
Oude Kerk (Old Church) was the earliest parish church in 
Amsterdam, founded about 1300, when the city was granted 
municipal rights by the count of Holland. The iconoclastic 
fury of 1566-67 heavily damaged the church, destroying 
altarpieces and sculptures but sparing the great organ over 
the entrance and many of the stained-glass windows. 
Following the victory of the Dutch Reformed Church in 1578, 
the many altars and statues of this former Catholic church 
were removed and the interior was transformed to meet the 
needs of the Protestant service, which focuses on hearing 
the word of God in lieu of viewing images. 

For the present painting, De Witte stood in the side 
chapel in the southwest corner of the church and looked 
north from the south aisle, across the nave and north aisle to 
the tall light-filled windows of the opposite chapel in which 
subtle suggestions of foliage and buildings are visible. The 
play of reflected light and shadow, what Arnold Houbraken 
(1660-1719) referred to as De Witte's “spirited play of light" 
(geestige verkiezinge van lichten), 2 animates and defines the 
complicated spaces of the church interior. Sunlight stream¬ 
ing through the western windows fills the screened chapel 
at the left and continues on the floor of the south aisle. 

On the far right, at the end of the sunlight, a gentleman 
with a red cape stands apart from the congregants gathered 
in the center of the church for the service. He has apparently 
stopped to listen to the sermon. Sharp diagonal shafts 
of light draw attention to the distant animated figure of the 
preacher in his pulpit, next to which the blurred colors of 
the window suggest the remnants of the old stained glass. 

Infrared reflectography and microscopic examination 
of the painting reveal underdrawing in graphite pencil 
throughout the painting and a system of multiple vanish¬ 
ing points where the paint and ground were displaced 
by a sharp point (see Technical Report). 3 The underdrawing 
is most clearly visible on the left, where the arches, columns, 
and capitals are indicated, sometimes with multiple free¬ 
hand, sketchy lines that indicate De Witte's effort to establish 
their correct placement. 4 Several sharp diagonal lines lead¬ 
ing from the left to four vanishing points, which are 
concentrated around the three people on the far left, served 
as guides for establishing the proper perspective. Additional 
cues are provided by the relative scale of these figures and 
of the man with the red cape in the right foreground. 

The interior space of the Oude Kerk appears at once 
both vast and restricted. By enlarging the entrance to the 
chapel that frames his view and exaggerating the width of 
the south aisle, De Witte distorts the actual space. The flat 
surfaces and series of columns of the arcades of the nave 
and the bright sunlight through the south aisle align paral¬ 
lel to the picture plane and visually compress the space, 
complicating the perception of depth. 

The viewpoint and the exaggerated height and width 
of the south aisle, however, allowed De Witte to include 
the elegant marble screen erected at the entrance to the 
chapel at the left. The chapel, the church's original baptis¬ 
tery, had been purchased in 1648 for a family tomb by the 
powerful burgomaster Cornelis de Graeff (1599-1664). 

The screen, completed after 1651, was probably designed by 
Jacob van Campen (1596-1657) with sculptural work by 
Artus Quellinus I (1609-1668). 5 

De Witte's unusual view also directs attention to the 
great organ located at the west end of the nave above the 
entrance to the church. 6 Built between 1530 and 1540 with 
doors decorated by Maarten van Heemskerck (1498-1574), 
the organ was regarded as one of the finest in the Nether¬ 
lands. 7 Although the synod of the Dutch Reformed Church 
had banned the playing of organs in 1574, few instruments 
were actually destroyed and many continued to be played. 8 
Among those who played in the Oude Kerk after the official 
ban was the famous organist Jan Pietersz. Sweelinck 

The controversy over the playing of the organ during 
the actual church service was resolved after 1640, largely 
because of the publication in Leiden of Gebruyck of ongebruyck 
van’torgel inde kercken de VereenighdeNederlanden (To Use 
or Not to Use the Organ in the Churches of the United 
Netherlands) by the statesman and poet Constantijn 
Huygens (1596-1687), who argued for the use of the organ 
to accompany the singing of psalms during the service. 
Among his arguments was the need to improve the quality 
of congregational singing! 9 Many English travelers, 
accustomed to more stringent restrictions, remarked about 
the playing of organs to accompany singing in Dutch 
churches. “The Dutch," one noted, “are mighty singers of 
psalms, both at home and in their churches." 10 

In many communities the city magistrates, who had 
control over the organists, actually required them to play an 
hour-long recital immediately following the morning and 
afternoon church services. 11 Writing in 1765, Jan Wagenaar 
noted in his history of Amsterdam that “already in the pre¬ 
vious (seventeenth) century music was played on the small 
organ [next to the pulpit] every evening for the pleasure 
of the strollers in the Oude Kerk."^ 

The architecture, which soars above the congregants, 
plays a larger role in Interior of the Oude Kerk, Amsterdam than 
in most of De Witte's paintings in which greater emphasis is 
given to the staffage. The open spaces, smaller scale of the 
figures, and tight handling of paint are similar to his works 
from about 1659 to 1661, suggesting that the painting dates 
about 1659. 13 The staffage, nevertheless, serves an important 
function both compositionally and iconographically. 
Balancing the deep vista on the left, the unidentified gentle¬ 
man with a red cape, sword, and hat standing next to 
the massive column on the right directs attention to the 


De Witte, Interior of the Oude Kerk, Amsterdam 

preacher silhouetted against the sunlight as he delivers his 
sermon, the major element of the Calvinist service. The 
sunlight entering the church from the west indicates that it 
is the afternoon service, when the sermon was drawn from 
the catechism. 14 Gathered in the nave and spilling over into 
the aisles are the well-dressed congregants, including 
men, women, and children. People of high and middle rank 
sit around and between the pillars. 15 A London merchant 
visiting the Oude Kerk observed: “[The church] was then 
full of people all sitting at the communion, being the last 
Sunday in the month. The men being all in black cloaks and 
broad bands [collars] as big as handkerchiefs and sitting 
apart from the women as we do in England, with this 
difference that the men are in pews about pillars and the 
women on benches or chairs in the open part of the church.” 16 

The presence of people who do not appear to be part 
of the service, such as the family and dog in the back of the 
church beneath the great organ, is noteworthy. The colorful 
clothing of the man standing in the bright light in the 
foreground also sets him apart from the more conservatively 
dressed congregants, who sit in pews. Wearing a sword 
and accompanied by his hunting dog and possibly his page, 
he appears to be a visitor rather than one who has come to 
pray. Even before the Reformation, a distinction was made 
between a preekkerk (preaching church), in which services 
were held at set times, and a wandelkerk (strolling church), in 
which anyone could come any time of day to wander 
around, conduct trade, play, lounge about, or listen to 
music. Here De Witte refers to the custom of visiting the 
Oude Kerk, a preaching church that was also popular 
among tourists, who strolled through part of the nave, 
ambulatory, and side aisles to see the many historical 
monuments to naval heroes while the service took place in 
the main part of the nave. 17 In 1663, for example, an English 
visitor to Amsterdam, William, Lord Fitzwilliam, observed: 

In the old part of the town there is the Old Church, 
a great and stately building having a very high steeple 
and very rare chimes on the top of it.... Upon the 
windows you will find many old pieces of painting 
of Philip the Good [the Handsome] and his wife, 
Christ’s nativity, and Mary’s and Elizabeth’s saluta¬ 
tion. Behind the choir is a new piece which represents 
King Philip [IV] of Spain’s coronation and his signing 
with his own hands the peace with the Seven United 
Provinces [1648]. 18 

The large number of paintings of the Oude Kerk attrib¬ 
uted to De Witte as well as to other artists attests to the 
popularity of the subject. The paintings were undoubtedly 
appreciated for their aesthetic appeal and as depictions of 
a local monument. They may, however, also have served as 
statements of faith. According to Walter Liedtke, De Witte’s 
paintings were, in fact, often referred to as “sermons” in 
seventeenth-century inventories. 19 In the Carter painting as 
well as in others by De Witte, the prominent placement of 
the opened tomb with the skull and bones in the fore¬ 
ground is a reminder of the inevitability of death. Here, by 
juxtaposing the tomb and the congregation listening to 
the sermon by the preacher, who appears, literally, to be 
“enlightened,” De Witte proclaims the Calvinist belief that 
salvation comes through faith in the word of God. 

In at least two paintings, De Witte combined a family 
portrait with a view of the interior of the Oude Kerk, 
a probable reference to the religious faith of his patrons. In 
one of these paintings, the interior of the Oude Kerk 
appears in the background of a portrait of an unidentified 
family represented in their home (see fig. 35.1). In the other, 
a family included in the foreground within the church 
appears to represent specific people (Amsterdam Museum, 
on loan from the National Office of Cultural Heritage, 
Rijswijk/Amsterdam, inv. no. SB 4929). Similarly, the 
prominence in the Carter painting of the family chapel of 
Cornelis de Graeff may indicate that De Witte, either on 
commission or independently, intended it as a statement of 
the powerful regent’s faith and a record of the monument. 
Among the unattributed paintings in the estate of Cornelis 
de Graeff’s son Pieter de Graeff (1638-1707), one of the 
wealthiest men in the seventeenth century, was “a church 
with many figures” (een kerk met veel beelden), which may 
have been the Carter painting. 20 

A careful ink and wash drawing of Interior of the Oude 
Kerk, Amsterdam made by Cornelis Pronk (1691-1759) 
accurately records the painting with only a few differences, 
some of which are the result of paint losses and perhaps 
Pronk’s desire to clarify details of the church based on his 
own observations (fig. 36.2). 21 The most significant is his 
definition of the relief carving on the marble screen of the 
De Graeff chapel and of the elaborate copper gate, which 
were illustrated in a full-page print in Wagenaar’s history of 
Amsterdam in 1765.^ Pronk also included a sculpture at the 
top of the third rib, just below the vault of the south aisle, 
but omitted the figure of the child from the family group 
beneath the great organ. 


De Witte, Interior of the Oude Kerk, Amsterdam 

Fig. 36.1 

Fig. 36.1 Cornelis Pronk (1691-1759) after Emanuel 
de Witte, Interior of the Oude Kerk, n.d. Ink and wash, 
12 14 x 17^4 (33.6 x 44.9 cm). Koninklijk 
Oudheidkundig Genootschap, Amsterdam 


De Witte, Interior of the Oude Kerk, Amsterdam 



Fig. TR36.1 Infrared reflectogram 

Fig. TR36.2 Detail of IRR underdrawing in capitals 
of columns on left side of church. These capitals 
were raised at a later stage in the painting. The blue 
shows where the artist used freehand drawing, and 
the red lines show his perspective guidelines. 

■ 1 ' 


rN. I l 

x 1 1 

I, I'Mi 

The panel is about % inch thick and 
beveled; the reverse is stained or painted 
brown. Wood strips, each about % inch 
wide, have been added to the top and 
bottom. The panel is in good condition 
except for a short crack at the lower 
right, several small areas of insect 
damage, and a noticeable bow through 
the horizontal center. There is a thin 
cream-colored ground with a thinner 
pink ground containing large lead-white 
agglomerates on top. The horizontal 
brushstrokes of the ground application 
show through the paint layers on the 

Infrared reflectography (IRR) revealed 
sharp, fine underdrawing that included 
perspective guidelines (probably done 
with a straightedge) and freehand 
drawing (fig. TR36.1). 1 Examination of 
an area of exposed underdrawing with 
the digital microscope showed that it 
had a metallic appearance typical of 
graphite or metalpoint. 2 The perspec¬ 
tive lines converge at vanishing points 
marked by tiny indentations in the 
paint of the panel on the left side. De 
Witte filled the indentations with tiny 

blobs of paint that are slightly different 
in tone from the surrounding paint, 
which is perhaps due to differential 
aging. The existence of freehand draw¬ 
ing, perspective guidelines, and physical 
vanishing points confirmed that here, 
as in Interior of the Nieuwe Kerk in Delft 
with the Tomb of William the Silent (cat. no. 
35), De Witte drew directly on the 
panel rather than transferred the design 
from a drawing. 

Freehand underdrawing found through¬ 
out the panel is most apparent in the 
arches in the upper left, where they 
testify to De Witte’s repeated efforts to 
achieve the correct shape (fig. TR36.2). 
The series of arches separating the nave 
and side aisles also show his attempts to 
get the correct angle. Drawing also 
exists below the arch on the left, where 
two capitals for the springers of the 
vault were initially placed at a lower 
position and later raised. 

De Witte also used a brush to lay in 
carbon-black washes that may have 
been part of the underdrawing stage. 3 
These washes were found in the 
following pentimenti: the tall dark 
shadow just to the right of the great 
organ on the left side of the painting, 

which may indicate an earlier place¬ 
ment of the organ; the blocky, dark 
shape just to the right of the painting’s 
center; and the dark shapes above the 
group of small figures on the left side of 
the painting, which may represent an 
earlier placement of these same figures. 
The picture hanging on the left-hand 
wall has been shifted in position, and 
there are also changes in the scale of the 

Paints range from thick, pasty light 
colors to thin, translucent warm ones. 
The thin applications of paint allow the 
colors of the ground and underlayers 
of paint to mingle with the upper layers. 
The thickest paint, the bright vertical 
strip of light on the back wall to the left 
of the chandelier, is raised and rounded. 
White paint was applied thickly and 
perhaps in layers and glazed with yellow 
paint. For the most part, De Witte used 
fairly narrow brushes in this painting. 
The thin, translucent warm colors 
of the ceiling and the thin gray colors of 
the stone floor are tinged by the color 
of the ground. The complex column at 
the right edge was laid in with a thin 
layer of white or light pink paint on top 


De Witte, Interior of the Oude Kerk, Amsterdam 

Fig. TR36.3 Detail of the fluted column in the 
foreground on the far right shows the layering and 
diagonal strokes of paint. The thinly painted wood 
ceiling is in the background. 

Fig. TR36.4 X-radiograph with some of the 
pentimenti marked 

of the pink ground and built up with 
lighter and darker grays (fig. TR36.3). 
The columns were painted in much the 
same way as those in the artist’s Interior 
of the Nieuwe Kerk in Delft with the Tomb of 
William the Silent (cox. no. 35). Brush¬ 
strokes curve diagonally around the 
columns to suggest volume. It is evident 
from viewing with the naked eye and 
the X-radiograph that the staffage 
was painted over the architecture and 

The glass windows of the north aisle 
blur the view outside the church. For 
this effect De Witte brushed different 
tones into and over one another. The 
third large glass window from the left, 
for example, was painted with a grayish 
colored paint that contains the pigment 
smalt. There is a higher concentration 
of smalt in the darker, lower part of the 
window than in the brighter, upper 
area. A yellowish-colored glaze over the 
gray layer produces a greenish hue that 
suggests the foliage outside, and a pink 
glaze over the gray layer indicates the 
buildings outside. A yellowish glaze 
applied over the pink and gray layers 
creates a dull warm green at the middle 
of the window. 

The red cloak of the man at the right 
consists of a number of layers of paint. 
First, there is a dull red paint modeled 
with black and dark lake glazes. Fine 
black lines outline and define detail. For 
the brighter red highlights, the artist 
applied a light cream paint that he then 
covered with vermilion-cinnabar (and 
lake?) to get the strongest effect from 
the red. 

There are notable pentimenti at the 
west end and north aisle of the church. 
The lower third of the engaged column 
next to the great organ on the west 
wall appears in the X-radiograph bright 
white with brushstrokes (fig. TR36.4). 
The dark base of the column was 
originally 14 inch higher. IRR and 
X-radiography exposed changes in the 
position of the organ that appear to 
have to do with adjusting the viewpoint. 

The inscription in light pink-gray paint 
has been abraded and strengthened 
to some degree. The first letter must be 
an E and the next letter should be a D. 
Following the first two letters, WIT are 
legible. After that, one can possibly 
read 1651. 

The painting is in good condition. Sur¬ 
face paints are somewhat thinned, 
particularly the painted wood ceiling. 
The hazy appearance of the ceiling 
is probably from the varnish. The black 
sash of the man with the red cape has 
some abrasion, flaking, and cracking, 
but it has been restored. The paint 
on the chandeliers appears strengthened. 
The varnish is matte and may contain 
some wax. The painting was sprayed 
with an acrylic varnish in 1982. 


1 The IR reflectogram was taken using a i6oonm 
interference bandpass filter. This helped 
emphasize the fine underdrawing material that 
seemed less dark and absorbing than the 
underdrawing in De Witte’s Interior of the Nieuwe 
Kerk in Delft with the Tomb of William the Silent 
(cat. no. 35). 

2 No analysis was carried out. 

3 The fairly amorphous and transparent quality 
of these areas suggests that they are washes that 
contain carbon-black pigment. However, we 
cannot tell if they are oil- or water-based without 


De Witte, Interior of the Oude Kerk, Amsterdam 


1 Avercamp hack to entry) 

1 For example, it was reported in Die nieuwe chroni- 
jcke van Brabandt, p. 443: “In this year of [15)64 it 
froze so severely for ten weeks on end that people 
in Antwerp crossed the Scheldt on foot and horse¬ 
back from the day after Christmas until Twelfth 
Night, and because of the great novelty, stalls 
and tents were erected on the ice, where food and 
drink and other wares were sold.” (In dit iaer van 
lxiiii hever x weken lanck seer sterc ghevroosen / 
so datme Tantwerpen over die Schelde ghinck te 
voet en te peerde vanden tweede Kerstdach tot op 
de dry Coninghen dach / en om der grooter nieu- 
wicheyt / so heeft men daer Craeme en Tenten op 
ghestelt / en spijse en dranc / en ander coopman- 
schap op vercocht ghelijcmehier achter figuerlijc 
siet.) Quoted in The Hague 2001-2, p. 12. 

2 William Mountague (b. 1645), The Delights of 
Holland: or, A Three Month’s Travel about That 
and the Other Provinces. ... (London, 1696), pp. 
221-22. Quoted in Van Strien 1998, pp. 372-73. 
Mountague was in Holland from August to 
November 1695; therefore, his report of the winter 
activities must have been hearsay or derived from 
another account. 

3 The game of coif was played with a curved wooden 
stick similar to a modern hockey stick. The object 
was to hit a wooden ball or sheepskin ball stuffed 
with cow or calf hair to an agreed target in the 
fewest number of strokes. See The Hague 2001-2, 
p. 26, and Roelofs in Amsterdam-Washington 
2009-10, pp. 60-61. See also Bergen op Zoom 

etc. 1982. 

4 The watercolor is Welcker T 46 and T 510. The 
painting (Welcker S14) is canvas mounted on 
panel, 18 Yz x 35 in. (47 x 89 cm), and signed with 
Avercamp’s monogram on a barrel. In addition 
to the elegantly dressed couple in the right 
foreground, the two paintings share a number 
of other details, suggesting that they were done 
close in date to each other. 

5 Ploos van Amstel i82i-[27?], no. 8: “opniew in’t 
koper gebragt en in zijne eigenlijke coleuren 
gedrukt.” Plomp 1997, vol. 2, no. 20, pp. 52-53. 

The inscription on Ploos van Amstel’s print reads: 
“HA 1621 fe. dit is frederik de sde, koning van 
bohemen en vrouw na het leven getijkent.” (This 
is Frederick V, King of Bohemia, and wife drawn 
from life.) Laurentius and Niemeijer 1980, no. 8, 
p. 259. Ploos van Amstel claimed that the original 
drawing was signed with Avercamp’s monogram. 
John Walsh and Cynthia Schneider in Los Angeles- 
Boston-New York 1981-82, p. 4, mistakenly state 
that Avercamp’s drawing is inscribed. Avercamp’s 
drawing includes neither a monogram nor a date 

and does not identify the figures. For a discussion 
of the drawing and print, see Schapelhouman 
2009-10, pp. 114-15,169052. 

6 Welcker and Hensbroek-van der Poel 1979, pp. 
66-67,68-69. Welcker identifies the two youths 
in the drawing as the elder sons of Frederick and 
Elisabeth. See also Paris 1972, no. 63. 

7 A. B. de Vries et al. 1968, no. 16, were the first to 
question the royal identification, noting that 
the figures appear in a painting De Vries dates to 
before 1621, when Frederick and Elisabeth arrived 
in the Netherlands. His opinion, supported by 
later authors, was that the figures were intended 
to be viewed as generic types. John Walsh and 
Cynthia Schneider in Los Angeles-Boston-New 
York 1981-82 and Los Angeles 1992-93, p. 5, also 
rejected the identification, recognizing the 

lack of resemblance of the figures to authentic 
representations of the royal couple, such as the 
grisaille of 1626-28 by Adriaen Pietersz. van de 
Venne (1589-1662) depicting the pair departing 
for the hunt (Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv. no. 
SK-A-958). The latter two authors also rejected 
the identification by Welcker 1933 and by Van 
Regteren Altena in Paris 1972, no. 63, of the 
woman in profile as Amalia van Solms because the 
woman in Avercamp’s painting does not resemble 
accepted images of Van Solms. They concluded 
that the drawing provided models to be used in 
different combinations in Avercamp’s paintings, 
something that would have been inappropriate 
for images of the royal couple. 

8 Du Mortier 2009-10, p. 142. Her suggestion that 
the elegant group in the right foreground might 
represent Emilia of Nassau (1569-1629), princess 
of Portugal, and her retinue, who stayed in Snel’s 
Inn in Kampen for two days in 1620, seems, how¬ 
ever, unlikely considering the age of the woman 
in the painting. Emilia, who was the youngest 
daughter of William of Orange and his second 
wife, Anna of Saxony, and thus the half sister of 
the stadholder Frederik Hendrik, would have 
been at least fifty in 1620. 

9 According to Du Mortier 2009-10, p. 152, 

“Velvet or silk masks... were worn for a variety 
of reasons: to remain incognito, to conceal 
imperfections such as scars—pockmarks, for 
instance—or freckles, as protection against the 
cold, but usually to preserve the highly desirable 
pale complexion.” 

10 Du Mortier 2009-10, pp. 142-43. 

11 Du Mortier 2009-10, p. 159. 

12 In Brueghel’s painting, well-dressed aristocrats, 
probably residents of the distant estate, picnic 
in cattle fields next to a farmyard where farmers 
conduct their business. One of the aristocratic 
women takes a young child by the hand to 
observe a farm woman milking. In other paint¬ 
ings Brueghel represents aristocrats observing 
peasants dancing. 

13 Wallert and Verslype 2009-10, especially 

pp. 136-37- 

14 For Avercamp and perspective, see Roelofs in 
Amsterdam-Washington 2009-10, pp. 56-57. 

15 Wheelock in Washington 1995, p. 12, observed 
that Avercamp’s painting A Scene on the Ice 
(National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC) shares 
not only landscape elements with the Carter 
painting but also “no less [sic] than fourteen 
figure groups.” Regarding Avercamp’s use of 
drawings, see Schaelhouman 2009-10. 

16 Pen and black ink, with watercolor, 4% x 8 % in. 
(124 x 222 mm). Welcker T138. 

17 Roelofs in Amsterdam-Washington 2009-10, p. 79. 

18 Engraving, 234 x 298 mm, Rijksmuseum, 
Amsterdam, inv. no. RP-P-1885-A-9335. 

Published by Hieronymus Cock (1518-1570), the 
print remained popular for many years and 
introduced a number of motifs that appear in 
Avercamp’s paintings: people tying on skates; 

a woman who has fallen, exposing her naked 
buttocks; spectators; and people who have fallen 
through the ice. 

19 English translation by Nadine Orenstein 
and Manfred Sellink in Sellink 2007, p. 68, of 
the inscription added to the second state by 
the Antwerp print publisher Johannes Galle 
(1600-1676): “Aij leert hier aen dit beeldt, hoe 
wij ter wereldt rijen / En slibberen onsen wegh, 
d’een mal en d’ander wijs, / Op dees verganck- 
lijckheijt veel brooser als het ijs.” The original 
engraver had left space for an inscription; Galle’s 
late inscription is the only one known. 

20 Walsh and Schneider in Los Angeles-Boston- 
New York 1981-82 and Los Angeles 1992-93, p. 4, 
note the association of fortune-telling with this 
common symbol of the heat of love. At p. 704 the 
authors refer to Braunschweig 1978, nos. 15,32, 
33, and Amsterdam 1976, no. 28. They correctly 
reject the sexual association to the dead birds 
held by the hunter who appears in a number of 

2 Berckheyde (back to entry) 

1 In the previous catalogues of the Carter collection, 
the support was incorrectly cited as canvas. 

2 Vondel 1929-34, vol. 5 (1931), p. 866. 

3 Hoogewerf 1919, p. 276: “Vreemdelingen staan 
verbijsterd wanneer zij het voor het eerst aanschou- 
wen, en het lijkt wel of alle vier de windstreken 
van deze wereld zich hebben beroofd om haar te 
verrijken en de meest zeldzame en verbazingwek- 
kende schatten in haar haven te brengen.” English 
translation from Amsterdam 1997, p. 34. The 
painting Cosimo purchased directly from Jan van 
der Heyden is The Town Hall of Amsterdam, 1667, oil 
on canvas, 33^6 x 36 in. (85 x 92 cm) (Galleria 
degli Uffizi, Florence, inv. no. 1890: 1211). See 
Greenwich and Amsterdam 2006-7, no. 9, 


pp. 122-25, ill. For Cosimo de’ Medici’s visits to 
the Netherlands in 1667-69, see L. Wagenaar 2014. 

4 Amsterdam 1997. 

5 In other paintings (see, for example. The Dam 
Square Looking toward the North, Amsterdam 
Museum, inv. no. S A 2106; Amsterdam 2008, 

p. 139, ill.), Berckheyde, like his contemporary Jan 
van der Heyden (see, for example. The Town Hall of 
Amsterdam, n. 3 above), took a position just south 
of the building and slightly east at the entrance to 
Dam Square from the Kalverstraat or the Kromel- 
leboogsteeg so that he could represent an oblique 
view of the Town Hall with the Nieuwe Kerk in 
the distance. 

6 Houses on the opposite side of the canal made it 
difficult to view the back of the building directly 
from the west, and the bend in the canal and the 
base of the unfinished tower of the Nieuwe Kerk 
made it difficult to view it from the north. 

7 Amsterdam 1997, p. 14. The drawings belong to 
a group of approximately ten separate views of 
Amsterdam canals. The view of the Nieuwezijds 
Voorburgwal is drawn from about the same van¬ 
tage point. The dominant building is the Nieuwe 
Kerk, which is obscured in Berckheyde’s painting 
by the later construction of the Town Hall. 

8 Nieuwenhuizeni974,figs.34and36. 

9 Amsterdam 1997, p. 96. The procedure used 
by Berckheyde thus differs from that of 

Van der Heyden, who used a transfer drawing 
(see cat. no. 14). 

10 Peeters 1991 believes that Berckheyde based the 
painting on another drawing in which he 
updated the appearance of at least one of the 
houses. Regarding the Thyssen-Bornemisza 
painting, see also Gaskell 1990, pp. 294-97. 

11 Los Angeles-Boston-New York 1981-82, pp. 9-11. 

12 Amsterdam 1918, no. 10, ill. The lighting and 
perspective of the canal are similar in both 
paintings, but the details of life on the canal are 
different and simpler in the Muller painting. In 
that version Berckheyde represents men 
unloading barrels from a barge onto the quay 
and two sailboats, their leeboards raised, docked 
along the east side of the canal. 

13 Amsterdam 1665, book 4, p. 245. The flower 
market was moved to its present location along 
the Singel in 1862. The former flower market is 
the location of the present-day print collectors’ 

14 J. Wagenaar 1760-67, vol. 2 (1765), part 4, book 1, 
p. 427. 

3 VanBorsSOm back to entry) 

1 Cramer 1970-71, p. 27, attributed the painting to 
Adriaen van de Velde (1636-1672) but noted 
“Traces of signature... some scholars identify the 
signature as by Anthonie van Borssom... to 
whom the work has also been given.” Correspon¬ 
dence in the Hans Cramer Records, Box 108, 

Folder 10, Getty Research Institute, indicates that 
on 29 March 1971 Kenneth Donahue, director of 
LACMA, wrote to Hans Cramer, “please send photo¬ 
graphs of the Adriaen van de Velde Flat Panorama 

Landscape _[A. B. de Vries, former director of the 

Mauritshuis and the RKD-Nederlands Instituut 

voor Kunstgeschiedinis, The Hague] thought Mr. 
Carter might be interested in the picture.” 
Donahue wrote to Cramer again on 14 May 1971 
(Box 110, Folder 11) after the painting had arrived 
in Los Angeles, noting, “Ben Johnson, Head of 
Conservation, studied the picture carefully and 
both Dr. de Vries and Egbert Haverkamp 
Begemann commented on the authorship. Both of 
them feel, in fact, that there is no doubt the pic¬ 
ture is Anthonie van Borssom rather than Adriaen 
van de Velde. In studying the signature, Ben 
Johnson has come to the same conclusion.” 
Cramer sold the painting as by Van Borssom to the 
Carters in 1971. He incorrectly identifies the view 
as “seen from Rhenen.” 

2 See also Anthonie van Borssom, View of Schenken- 
shanzand theEltenberg, near Emmerich, ca. 1656, 
oil on canvas, 39^6 x 49^6 in. (99.2 x 125.3 cm), 
Philadelphia Museum of Art, inv. no. W1901-1-2. 

3 The inclusion of cattle, as well as the delicate red 
and white wildflowers that animate the 
foreground, especially in the views of 
Schenckenschanz, reveals Van Borssom’s 
familiarity with the paintings and prints of cattle 
by Paulus Potter (1625-1654), with whom his early 
work has been confused. For example. Van 
Borssom, Barnyard Scene (ca. 1650-55, oil on canvas, 
20 x 27 in. [50.8 x 68.6 cm]. The Metropolitan 
Museum of Art, New York, inv. no. 32.100.12) was 
acquired by the Metropolitan with a fake 
signature of Paulus Potter. Liedtke 2007, vol. 1, no. 
20, pp. 84-86. In contrast to the paintings of 
Potter, however, in Van Borssom’s paintings, the 
cattle never dominate the landscape. 

4 Butkens 1626, p. 54. Rademaker 1725, no. 
CCLXXIV, “View in the year 1520 of the ancient, 
and fine Fortress of Lynden, commonly Called the 
Terlee’s [ter Lede] Castel, not far from Rhin’s River 
and near the Rhenen Town: that Edifice subsist 
still, but t’is now very much altered by the 
changes made to it.” Rademaker provides 
descriptions in Dutch, French, and English for 
each print. 

5 It is uncertain which count could have 
commissioned the painting. In 1664 George 
Frederick, graaf van Waldeck Piermont ende 
Culenborch, is mentioned as the heir of Hendrick 
Walrat, graaf van Waldeck Piermont ende 

6 Liedtke 2007, vol. 1, pp. 84-86, and n. 3 above. 

7 See, for example, SpringLandscape (May), dated and 
monogrammed 1587LVV (Kunsthistorisches 
Museum, Vienna, inv. no. 1065). Anthonie van 
Borssom, Park ofvan Johan Maurits van Nassau, oil 
on canvas, 55 Vz x 78% in. (141 x 200 cm) (Kaiser 
Wilhelm Museum, Krefeld, inv. no. 199). 

8 Ertz 1979, no. 246. Between 1611 and 1612 
Brueghel portrayed the castle in a number of 
paintings in which the archdukes and their 
retinue are seen enjoying the pleasures of the 
countryside within sight of the castle. In the large 
(73 14 x 115 in. [186 x 292 cm]) version dated 1612 at 
Dijon (Ertz 1979, no. 262), the emphasis is 
topographical without figures. 

9 The hill was important strategically for defense 
because it provided one of the few places from 
which the surrounding territory could be viewed 
for miles. 

10 Sepp 1773, p. 85: “Aan de Westzyde heeft men 
een zeer hoogen Berg, welke veeltyds bekommen 
word, om van daar een der fraaiste Gezichten 
over den Rhyn, als mede op de Neder-Betuwe, 
en over de Rheensche Veenen te aanschouwen.” 
Quoted in Washington-London-Amsterdam 
2001-2, no. 17, p. 19402; partial English 
translation, p. 126. 

11 The stone table was constructed of a large 
bluestone slab that had been found on the 
mountain. The origin of the name Koningstafel 
is not known. It is presumed that it referred to 
Frederick V, who reportedly enjoyed the view 
from this spot. Frederick and his wife, Elisabeth 
Stuart (1596-1662), the sister of Charles I of 
England, established residence in the 
Netherlands after the Catholic troops of the 
emperor deposed the couple as the Protestant 
king and queen of Bohemia. In medieval times 
the Heimenberg, an earthen fortress known as 

a ringwall, was situated on the Grebbeberg. 

12 Washington-London-Amsterdam 2001-2, no. 17. 
Cuyp painted a second smaller version of the 
subject. View of Rhenen with Travelers, ca. 1645, 
wood, 26 1 2 * * 5 / 8 x 3 5 5 /8 in. (67.5 x 90.5 cm), private 
collection, in which the travelers look in a 
different direction toward Rhenen. See foldout 
ill. in The Hague 1991, no. 8, p. 63. 

13 The drawing is signed in the lower left corner 
“v. Borssoms.” The relatively large size (9% x 
17 Vz in. [139 x 445 mm]) and finished quality 
of the drawing suggest that it was not done as 
a preliminary sketch but probably, like the 
painting, based on a now-lost sketch made on 

14 Pen and brown ink, brown, blue, red, and yellow 
wash, framing lines in pen and brown ink 
(mostly trimmed away). Davies 2014, no. 33, p. 50. 
See also a painting attributed to Anthonie van 
Borssom, falsely signed J. v. Kessel (19 x 22% in. 
[48.5 x 57.5 cm]), sold London, Christie’s, 7 July 
2000, lot 133. Bernt 1970, vol. 2, fig. 617. For the 
Grebbeberg and Konigstafel, see Schoemaker 
2007, pp. i7off. I am grateful to Laurens 
Schoemaker for directing me to his book and to 
the painting sold at Christie’s. 

4 Bosschaert (back to entry) 

1 See Technical Report. The lower right corner of 
the copper panel, including the date, is damaged 
and heavily restored. 

2 Frederik van Schurman, a Protestant, left 

Antwerp and moved to Cologne, where he was 
raised to nobility by the emperor. He later moved 
to Utrecht, where he apparently knew Bosschaert. 

Van Schurman was in The Hague in 1621 and died 
in Franeker, Friesland, in 1623. He is best known 
as the father of Anna Maria van Schurman 
(1607-1678). The first woman to attend a 

European university (Utrecht), she was a painter, 
engraver, poet, and noted scholar, who argued in 
her publications for the education of women. 


3 Bredius 1913, p. 138: “Mijn vader Ambrosius 
Bosschaert is gesturven in Schravenhage in ’t jaer 
als den 12 jarigen Trebes uut was, doch was 
woonachtig binnen Breda maer near den Hage 
getrocken om een blompot te leveren die hij 
hadde gemaeckt voor de bottelier van Sijn 
Hoochheyt daervoor hij dusent gulden hadde 
bedongen ende is aldaer sieck geworden ten huyse 
van joncker Schuermans, vader van Anna Maria 
Schuermans ende aldaer gesturven ende in 
Schravenhage begraven, tot droefheyt van veel 

4 The painting may be Bouquet of Flowers in a Glass 
Vase, signed and dated 1621, oil on copper, 12 7 Ae x 
8 Vz in. (31.6 x 21.6 cm). National Gallery of Art, 
Washington, DC, inv. no. 1996.35.1. The reverse of 
the painting includes the inscription joncker, the 
term Maria Bosschaert used to refer to Van 
Schurman. The reference to the artist’s death in 
the inscription on an illusionistic plaque attached 
to the front of the table, “C’est l’Angelicq main du 
gra[n]d Peindre de Flore AMBROSE, renomme 
jusqu’au Riuage Mort” (It is the angelic hand of 
the great painter of flowers, Ambrosius, renowned 
even to the banks of death), further suggests that 
the painting was the one Bosschaert took to The 
Hague just before his death, and that the 
inscription was added later by another artist. For a 
discussion of this painting, see Wheelock Online 

5 Thorn prunts are formed by large glass drops 
broadly melted on the glass and pulled out to a 

6 Goedde 1989, p. 38. The other still lifes set against 
a landscape or only an open sky are (1) Vase with 
Flowers in a Window, ca. 1618, oil on wood, 25 H x 

18 Vs in. (64 x 46 cm) (Mauritshuis. The Hague, inv. 
no. 679; Bol i960, no. 37); (2) Bouquet of Flowers, oil 
on copper, 8 5 /s x 6 7 /s in. (22 x 17.5 cm) (Musee du 
Louvre, Paris, inv. no. RF1984-150; Bol i960, no. 
38); (3) Still Life of Roses in a Berkemeijer Glass, with 
Butterflies and a Snail, in an Arched Stone Window with 
a Landscape Beyond, oil on copper, 11 x 9 V 4 in. (28 x 
23.5 cm) (private collection. United States; Bol 
i960, no. 44); (4) Roemer with Roses in an Arched 
Window, oil on copper, 12 34 x 9 in. (31 x 23 cm) 
(private collection; Bol i960, no. 45); and (5) 

Roemer with Roses in an Arched Window, oil on copper, 
11 x 9 in. (28 x 23 cm) (Museum of Fine Arts, 
Boston, Rose-Marie and Eijk van Otterloo 

7 Bosschaert’s first paintings of a bouquet placed in 
a niche date from his Utrecht period, when he was 
in contact with Roelandt Savery. Bosschaert 
introduced the view of the distant river landscape 
after he moved to Breda in late 1619, the date of 
the Carter painting. 

8 Hollstein 1949-2010, vol. 9 (1953), no. 24,24% x 
17% in. (620 x 45 mm) and Hollstein 1993-, vol. 2 
(i 994 ) 5 no. 242. Illustrated in San Francisco- 
Baltimore-London 1997-98, p. 358, fig. 2; and 
Segal 1990, p. 49. A less convincing source is 
mentioned in Los Angeles-Boston-New York 
1981-82, p. 18, in which the authors suggest the 
inspiration “was a remarkable, enigmatic picture 
by Pieter Bruegel the Elder, the Two Chained Apes 

of 1562 [y 7 /s x 9 in. (20 x 23 cm), Gemaldegalerie, 
Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, inv. no. 2077] ... in 

which monkeys are placed in a stone window 
through which a view of Antwerp can be seen.” 

9 In a letter to his patron Cardinal Borromeo, 
Bosschaert’s contemporary Jan Brueghel the Elder 
claimed that he had painted the bouquet of 
flowers totally from nature without the aid of 
drawings, capturing the likeness of each flower as 
it bloomed over the course of four months. 
Brueghel’s claim may be documented by his 
painting in which Flora paints a large flower still 
life while referring to individual blossoms placed 
in a vase on a table, which does not, however, 
duplicate the still life on the easel (Pictura in a 
Painter’s Studio, formerly with Johnny van Haeften, 
London). If Brueghel did indeed paint the 
individual flowers directly from life as they 
bloomed, this was probably the exception, since 
he comments that he worked without the aid of 
drawings. Breninkmeijer de Rooij 1996, pp. 6iff. 

10 Wheelock (Washington 1999, p. 28) reported 
finding pouncing in a number of images in a 
copy of Crispin van de Passe’s Hortus Floridus at 
the Folger Library. See also Wallert 1999, Murray 
and Groen 1994, and Groen and Murray 1991. 

11 Emanuel Sweerts, who sold rare bulbs, shells, and 
other exotica, published Florilegium, a catalogue 
without text to advertise plants for sale at the 
Frankfurt fair in 1612. Sweerts’s organization of 
the plants in family groups broke from the 
typical seasonal arrangements and marked a step 
toward the scientific categorization of plants that 
would not be defined until the early eighteenth 
century. Images in both the seventeenth-century 
collector’s albums and stock books contrast 
dramatically with the two-dimensional woodcut 
illustrations in herbals, which were often, if 

not generally, drawn from pressed rather than 
recently cut flowers. Bosschaert, whose eldest 
daughter, Maria (1605-1636), married Emanuel 
Sweerts’s son Hieronymus Sweerts (ca. 1603-1636) 
in Amsterdam in 1627, presumably knew the dealer. 

12 Van de Passe 1614. Although Crispijn van de 
Passe II was the primary author, the book was 
a collaborative effort that included work by his 
father and brothers, who were also artists and 
printmakers. Like Sweerts’s book. Van de Passe’s 
incorporated some prints from previous 

13 See, for example, the beautiful set of gouache 
drawings of individual tulips known as The Great 
Tulip Book at the Norton Simon Museum, 
Pasadena, inv. no. M.1974.08.005.D. 

14 The large prints were arranged in the album 
according to the seasons in which the flowers 
bloomed. The final publication was sold in two 
versions, either black-and-white or hand-colored. 
In 1613 a black-and-white copy could be acquired 
for 35 florins; a hand-colored version cost 500 
florins. Barker 1994, p. 16. 

15 Penissi2oo7- 

16 Lobelius was a physician in Middelburg as well 
as physician to William I, prince of Orange, and 
later to James I of England. 

17 Before his appointment to the newly established 
position of Horti Praefectus at the University of 
Leiden in 1593, Clusius had established the 

Imperial Botanic Garden in Vienna, served as 
adviser to Wilhelm IV, landgrave of Hesse, and 
published a book on the flora of the Iberian 
peninsula, Rariorum Aliquot Stipium. ... (1576). He 
was responsible for introducing and distributing 
many new plants from Africa and the Americas 
and especially bulbs from Asia: crown imperials, 
irises, hyacinths, anemones, ranunculi, narcissi, 
and lilies, as well as tulips. For Gemmingen, see 
Reithmeier 2010. 

18 Dr. Adriaen Pauw (1581-1653), grand pensionary 
of Amsterdam (1631-36), whose son was a consul 
in Turkey, grew nothing but Semper Augustus 
on his estate in Heemstede and jealously 
guarded its propagation. Pavord 1999, p. 133. 

19 Quoted in Brenninkmeyer-de Rooi 1996, p. 49. 

20 Bosschaert first introduced the yellow fritillaria 
in Bouquet of Flowers in a Stone Niche, 1618, oil on 
copper, 21% x 15 Vz in. (55.5 x 39.5 cm), Statens 
Museum for Kunst, Copenhagen, inv. no. 

21 Initially identified by Bergstrom 1956, p. 65. 

22 Pliny 1961-68, vol. 9 (1968), p. 309 (36.59-65). 

23 See, for example, Los Angeles-Boston-New York 
1981-82, p. 17, where biblical verses associating 
the brief life of flowers with vanitas are often 
cited, including Isaiah 40:6, “All flesh is grass, all 
the goodliness thereof is as the flowers of the 
field: the grass withereth, the flower fadeth; 
because the spirit of the Lord bloweth upon it.” 
On p. i9n6, the authors note, “The verse from 
Isaiah 40 is inscribed below an etching by Claes 
Jansz. Visscher of 1635, probably after a painting 
of about 1600.” Miinster-Baden-Baden 1979-80, 
p. 320, fig. 175. 

24 Visscher 1614, emblem V. Emblem IV, illustrated 
by shells, observes disdainfully, “It’s disgusting 
where a fool leaves his money” (Tis missellijck 
waer een geek zijn gelt aen leyt). Regarding the 
tulip, see Schama 1987, pp. 350-66; and Pavord 

25 The reference to transience and vanity is, for 
example, explicit in Jacob de Gheyn’s Vanitas Still 
Life, 1603 (The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 

New York, inv. no. 1974.1), which includes a 
single tulip in a vase with Spanish coins, a skull, 
and a bubble. An inscription on a flower still life 
in a glass attributed to Jan Brueghel the Elder 
formerly with Richard Green, London, includes 
a cartouche in which is written: “Wat kyckt ghy 
op dees blom die u soo schone schynt / En door 
des sonnen cracht seer lichtelyck verdwindt / 

Ledt op godts woordt alleen dwelck eeuwich 
bloeyen siet / Waerin verkeert de rest werelts dan. 
In niet.” (How closely you regard this flower 
which seems to you so fair / It fades away so 
easily in the sun’s strong glare / Be mindful of 
the word of God which alone blooms eternally / 
Then to what does the rest the world turn? To 
nothing.) Quoted from De Jongh 1982, p. 37ni2, 
ill. IV on p. 31. 

26 Sweerts 1976 (1612), pp. xi-xii. 

27 Barker 1994, p. 13. 


Both ack to entry) 

1 The composition is repeated in reverse in Both’s 
etching River Crossing, Bartsch 8. 

2 De Bie 1661 (1971), inscription under Both’s 

3 Sandrart 1675-79 (1925), p. 185, notes: “in den 
Landschaften die Manier des beruhmten Claudi 
Lorrennes.” Regarding Both’s paintings for the 
Buen Retiro, Madrid, 1640-41, see Burke 1976, pp. 
80-101, and Rothlisberger 1961, vol. 1, pp. 155-61. 

4 Oil on canvas, 39 H x 49 H in. (100 x 125 cm). 
Rothlisberger 1961, vol. 1, no. 232, fig. 96. 

5 In New York 1985, no. 8, the authors distinguish 
between the use of the bridge by the two artists, 
noting that bridges in Claude’s paintings are 
placed to give horizontal emphasis, whereas in 
Both’s paintings, the bridge is placed on a 

6 For Andries Both, see Waddingham 1964 and 
Burke 1976. 

7 See, for example, Italian Landscape with 
Draughtsman, 1650-52, oil on canvas, 73% x 

94 Vi in. (187 x 240 cm), Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, 
inv. no. SK-C-109. 

8 Ann Sutherland Harris in New York 1985, p. 7803. 

9 Sandrart 1675-79 (1925), p. 184: “Ein andermal 
sind wir, Pousin, Claudi Lorenes und ich, 
Landschafen nach dem Leben zu mahlen oder zu 
zeichnen auf Tivoli geritten, da dann auf der 
Ruckreise aus Sorge eines einbrechenden Regens 
Bambatio, unwifiend unser, vor uns heim 

10 No drawing of the scene by Both is known. 

A drawing representing the scene formerly 
attributed to him is now considered a copy after 
his work by Willem de Heusch (1625-1692), who 
knew Both in Utrecht after both men had 
returned from Italy: pen and ink with wash, 

7 7 /s x 11% in. (200 x 300 mm). Sale Paul Brandt, 
Amsterdam, 5 Apr. 1944, lot 41, where it is 
incorrectly identified as Ponte Molle. Last known 
owner, P. L. Mulder. 

11 The bridge is represented in its proper orientation 
in, for example, two very large paintings in 

the Galleria Doria Pamphilj, Rome, by Gaspard 
Dughet (1615-1675) (Boisclair 1986, no. 114, fig. 155), 
and by Bartolommeo Torreggiani (1590-1675), 
in the Accademia San Luca, Rome. 

12 Faucheux 1857 (1969), p. 41, no. 6: “Ponte logano 
viccino d Trivoly [includes view of Tomb of the 
Plautii], Israel Silvestre incidit cum Privuilegio 
Regis, 155 x 74.” The print is one of a suite of 
twenty-one Vues d’ltalie by Silvestre. It is 
incorrectly identified as “Veiie du Pont 
Lamentano proche de Tivoli.” Born in Nancy, 
France, by 1634-35 Silvestre was in Paris, where 
he was the student of his uncle Israel Henriet (ca. 
1590-1661). The younger artist was in Italy 
between 1638 and 1641 and again from about 1643 
to 1653. 

13 New York 1985, pp. 77-79. 

14 Los Angeles-Boston-New York 1981-82, p. 22, 
fig. 2. Both, Landscape with River, ca. 1645-50, 

oil on canvas, 41 x 4 6V1 in. (104.2 x 118.2 cm), sale, 
Rome, Finarte, 3 Dec. 2009, lot 69, formerly 
David G. Carter (no relation to Edward Carter) 

collection. New Haven. HdG 1907-28, vol. 9 
(1926), no. 94; Burke 1976, no. 76, as Landscape 
with River [and Ponte Molle?], purchased from the 
Schaeffer Gallery, New York, 1957. 

15 HdG 1907-28, vol. 9 (1926), no. 89; Burke 1976, 
under no. 76, as a copy. The painting was 
formerly in the Lansdowne collection, London, 
and later with the dealer Bruno Meissner, Zurich. 
It was sold as A Southern River Landscape, oil on 
canvas, 37% x 43% in. (95.5 x 111 cm) by a 
follower of Both at Sotheby’s, London, 19 Feb. 
1986, lot 54. The painting repeats the landscape 
and includes the draftsman and his companion 
but represents different figures in the right 

16 Burke 1976, pp. 226-27, regarding the replica 
formerly owned by David Carter, identifies two 
works by De Heusch that are variations of the 
same composition: a drawing in the Museum 
Kunstpalast, Diisseldorf, inv. no. FP 5224 (Schaar 
1968); and the painting ItalianLandscape at Sunset, 
1660-92, oil on copper, 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 /s x 11 14 in. (22 x 28.5 cm), 
signed GDHeusch (Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, 
inv. no. SK-A-149). Heusch sometimes used 
Guglielmo, thus the G in the initials. 


De Bray (back to entry) 

1 Ben Broos in The Hague-San Francisco 1990-91, 
p. 189, citing the comments about another 
painting in Segal 1982, p. 51, suggests that the 
ruddy glow of the painting refers to twilight, the 
frontier between day and night. 

2 In many areas the green pigments have changed 
to a rusty brown tonality. See Technical Report. 

7 Van de Cappelle (back to entry) 

1 The leeboards on either side of the yacht helped to 
reduce its drift. The short, oval leeboards of yachts 
and other inland watercraft differed from the long, 
narrow ones used for seagoing vessels. Pivoted at 
the forward end at deck level, the board on the lee 
side is lowered when sailing. Rotterdam-Berlin 
1996-97, p. 34. 

2 States barges were large rowboats with square 
sterns that were used for ferrying dignitaries 
from vessel to vessel or from land to ship and vice 
versa. The passengers sat on benches on the 
afterdeck, sometimes under a shelter near the 
helmsman. The barge depicted by Van de 
Cappelle has painted decorations on the gunwales. 
The sterns of states barges were also often painted 
or carved. Barges were standard equipment of 
merchant vessels in the seventeenth century. 
Rotterdam-Berlin 1996-97, p. 31. 

3 I am grateful to Elisabeth Spits at the Nederlands 
Scheepvaartmuseum, Amsterdam, for her help in 
identifying the location and the ships. 

4 The gaff, “a straight or curved spar serves to 
extend the head of a fore-and-aft sail. The gaff is 
hoisted by halyards.” Rotterdam-Berlin 1996-97, 

P* 34 * 

5 The horizontal alignment and vertical reflections 
of the fishermen in the boat at the left and 
standing in the shallows on the right, like the 
sailboats on either side of the horizon, contribute 
to the perception of balance and calm. 

6 The introduction to his inventory states (in 
translation from the Dutch), “In praise of the art 
of Jan van de Cappelle who taught himself to 
paint out of his own desire” (Russell 1975, p. 48). 
The inventory drawn up between 4 January and 
13 August 1680 was originally published by Bredius 
1892, pp. 31-40. Russell 1975, pp. 48-57, published 
a list in translation of the paintings and drawings, 
as well as a summary of other sections. The 
impressive collection included 200 paintings and 
more than 6,000 drawings, among which were 
1,350 drawings by Simon de Vlieger, 900 drawings 
by Hendrick Avercamp, and 600 drawings by 

Jan van Goyen, as well as numerous works by Jan 
Porcellis, all artists who shared Van de Cappelle’s 
fascination with the atmospheric effects of light 
and reflections. A number of paintings by 
De Vlieger and Porcellis are described in the 
inventory as “greys.” For example, “A Quiet river 
scene, in greys, by Jan Porcellis” (Russell 1975, no. 
38, p. 50). In the Parlor or Green Room a painting 
is noted as “A small seascape by the Deceased, 
after Porcellis” (Russell 1975, no. 116, p. 53). 

7 C. P. van Eeghen 2011, p. 212; Kelch 1971, pp. 9,122; 
and Russell 1975, pp. 2iff. 

8 The inventory of Van de Cappelle’s possessions 
made at the time of his death includes a yacht. 

ClaeSZ. (back to entry) 

1 For the earlier tradition, see Osias Beert the Elder, 
Dishes with Oysters, Fruit, and Wine, ca. 1620-25 
(National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, inv. no. 
i995-32.i), and Floris Claesz. van Dijck , Still Life 
with Fruit, Nuts, and Cheese, 1613 (Frans Hals 
Museum, Haarlem, inv. no. os I-76). 

2 Senenko 2009, p. 580: “The date on this painting 
has previously been read as 1642, but it can be 
read quite clearly as 1646.” 

3 The painting is signed with a monogram and 
dated on the right, beside the table: P. C.Ao. 
Amsterdam 2007, no. 46, pp. 103-4. 

4 In addition to the paintings in Moscow and 
Amsterdam, closely related still lifes by Claesz. 
dated 1647 are in the Kunsthalle Bremen (inv. no. 
325-1911/9), in the Szepmuveszeti Muzeum, 
Budapest (inv. no. 1026), and in the State 
Hermitage Museum, Saint Petersburg (inv. no. 

5 Hochstrasser 2007, p. 38, referring to Pieter de la 
Court, The True Interest and Political Maxims of the 
Republick of Holland and West Friesland (London, 
1702) and Interest van Holland, ofte,gronden van 
Hollands-welvaren (Amsterdam, 1662). 

6 For salt, see Hochstrasser 2007, pp. 160-71. 

7 Hochstrasser 2007, p. 163. The citation comes from 
the concluding lines of Cats’s poem in the chapter 
on salt in Van Beverwyck 1636, p. 179. 


8 According to Hochstrasser 2007, pp. 163-64, until 
1500 salt was extracted from Dutch soil through a 
process called darinkdelven, which Van Beverwyck 
1636, p. 179, describes in his chapter on salt: “Here 
in our land earlier there used to be no salt in use, 
except that dug out of the earth along the sea. 
They burned the earth to ashes, and making a lye 
out of this with warm water, drew out very white 
and shiny salt, which they called zel or zilt-zout” 
This process, which was carried out especially in 
Zeeland and Friesland, contributed to the 
disastrous Saint Elizabeth’s flood of 1421, which 
drowned large parts of southern Holland. In 1515 
Charles V forbade the digging of turf except for 
personal use. Jacob van Ruisdael (1628/29-1682) 
represents people harvesting salt in Banks of a 
River, 1649 (University of Edinburgh, on loan to 
the National Gallery of Scotland). The Salt Islands, 
off the west coast of Africa, which were discovered 
by Zeeland shippers in 1528, became a major 
source of salt for Europe. 

9 Hochstrasser 2007, p. 166. The salt trade in the 
West Indies began about 1600, when the Dutch 
discovered a great salt sea on Punta de Araya, 
Venezuela. The salt sea was formed by a 
continuous natural process and had the added 
advantage of being free. 

10 Hochstrasser 2007, p. 72, notes that the 
importation of lemons to the Netherlands began 
after the sea trade with the Mediterranean was 
well established. The transportation of citrus 
over the Alps from Italy was difficult because the 
fruit could not be exposed to temperatures 
below 50C (410F). 

9 Coorte (back to entry) 

1 Coorte introduced the tabletop motif in his 
paintings in 1685. Regarding the use of a template, 
see Bijl et al. 2008. 

2 The Hague 2008, p. 57, notes that two-thirds of 
Coorte’s oeuvre is painted on paper; thirty-one 
paintings on paper are pasted to wood panels and 
seven to canvas. 

3 The Hague 2008, pp. 57,60, citing correspondence 
from Martin Bijl. 

4 Oil on paper mounted on wood, 10x 8 % in. 

(26.9 x 20.4 cm). The Hague 2008, no. 16. 

5 See, for example. Still Life with a Spray of Gooseberries, 
1705, oil on canvas, 1214 x 9H in. (31 x 23.5 cm), 
private collection; The Hague 2008, no. 58. 

6 See Technical Report. Coorte may have intended 
to paint the strawberries in a crockery bowl. 

7 Los Angeles-Boston-New York 1981-82, p. 39. 

8 The Hague 2008, no. 54, oil on canvas, 11% x 9 in. 
(29.5 x 22.8 cm). New York, Ivor Foundation, and 
no. 55, oil on canvas, 11% x 8% in. (30 x 22.6 cm), 
private collection. 

9 Rinaldi 1989, pp. 154,139. 

10 See, for example. Still Life with a Bowl of 
Strawberries, 1704, oil on paper mounted on 
canvas, ii 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 /s x 9 in. (29.5 x 23 cm), private 
collection, Germany; The Hague 2008, no. 52. 

11 Quoted in The Hague 2008, p. 61, from Wilhelmus 
Beurs, Degroote waereld in’t kleen geschildert, 

of schilderagtig tafereel van ’5 weerelds schilderijen ... 
verklarende de hooftveren .... (Amsterdam, 1692), 

12 The Hague 2008, p. 61. 

13 See, for example, Still-Life with Strawberries, 
Asparagus and Grapes (Michaelis Collection, Cape 
Town; Buvelot 2008, fig. 20), which resembles 
Coorte’s early paintings such as Bowl with 
Strawberries, Gooseberries and Asparagus on a Stone 
Ledge with Draped Velvet Cloth, 1685, private 
collection (The Hague 2008, no. 5). 

14 See, for example, Abraham van Calraet, Still Life 
with Peaches, oil on panel, 13 x 10% in. (33 x 28 cm). 
Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, Rotterdam, 
inv. no. 1394 (OK). 

15 Het Utrechts Archief, Archive Familie Des 
Tombe, inventory no. 26, inv. no. 847, dated 
24 September 1780, probate inventory of the 
possessions of Jacob van Citters and his son Jacob 
Verheije van Citters, Kasteel Poppekensburg, p. 1, 
item 8: “Een Bloem Stuck door Coorde te 
Vlissingen.” Getty Provenance Index, Archival 
Inventories Database, N-1744 (Citters), also cited 
by The Hague 2008, p. 121. 

16 The Hague 2008, p. 18, cites Bol 1977, pp. 4-5, 

3h 63. 


Cuyp (back to entry) 

1 Los Angeles-Boston-New York 1981-82, no. 10, pp. 
40-45, dates the painting early to mid-i6sos. More 
recently, Washington-London-Amsterdam 2001-2, 
no. 41, dates it late 1650s. 

2 Waagen 1854, vol. 2, no. 2, p. 110. After seeing the 
painting in Lord Ashburton’s collection, Waagen 
wrote, “The composition itself has something 
more noble and poetical than is usual with [Cuyp]; 
to this is added a rare power and an energy of 
foreground with the most delicate gradation of 
the clear tones to the warm evening sky, so that 
the picture is one of the most beautiful that ever 
came from the hand of this master.” 

3 During the nineteenth century, when nationalist 
interests emphasized the differences between 
Catholic Belgium and the Protestant Netherlands, 
religious subjects were not generally expected in 
Dutch paintings. 

4 Frankfurt-Edinburgh-London 2006, no. 36. 

5 Bartsch 53,55, and 56. 

6 Hendrik Goudt, The Flight into Egypt, 1613, 
engraving (Hollstein 1949-2010, vol. 8 [1953], 
no. 3). The print had widespread influence. 

7 In addition to the Carter painting and that at the 
Metropolitan Museum (see above), a third 
painting is attributed to Cuyp, Flight into Egypt, oil 
on wood, 40 Vi x 60 Ya in. (105 x 153 cm), formerly 
Goudstikker, Amsterdam (sale, Berlin, 12 Mar. 
1941, lot 28), reproduced in Los Angeles-Boston- 
New York 1981-82, p. 43, fig. 3. Its current location 
is unknown. 

8 Liedtke 2007, vol. 1, p. 140, describing the 
Metropolitan’s painting: “The beautiful Flight 
into Egypt from the Carter Collection (Los Angeles 
County Museum) could be described as a larger 
and more elaborate version of the present work. 
And while the two paintings date from about the 
same time, one would imagine that the Carter 
picture is the slightly later.” 

11 Van Goyen ck to entry) 

1 See H.-U. Beck 1972-87, vol. 2 (1973), nos. 290-319. 

2 The city became an island in 1421, when the Saint 
Elizabeth’s flood drowned large parts of southern 
Holland, killing more than one hundred thousand 
people. It is bordered today by the Oude Maas, 
the Benede Merwede, the Nieuwe Merwede, the 
Hollands Diep, and the Dordtsche Kil. 

3 In 1220 William I, count of Holland, granted city 
rights to Dordrecht, making it the oldest city in 
Holland. It was also the city where in 1572 
representatives of all Dutch cities gathered to 
declare independence from Spain and 
acknowledge William of Orange as leader of the 
Dutch state—beginning the Eighty Years’ War. 

4 The Synod of Dort met to resolve the theological 
dispute between orthodox Calvinists and the 
Arminians, liberal Calvinists led by Johan 
Wytenbogaert (1557-1644) that had brought the 
country to the brink of civil war. Ultimately the 
Arminians (later known as Remonstrants) were 
defeated, resulting in the formation of the 
Dordrecht Confession of Faith. Evelyn 1983, p. 15. 

5 J. De Vries 1981, p. 57. Daily sailings were also 
available between Rotterdam and Walcheren and 
from both cities to Antwerp. Veere, one of four 
harbors on Walcheren, was first visited by Scottish 
merchants in 1439. By 1505 they had established it 
as their court from which they conducted trade 
with Europe. 

6 J. De Vries 1981, p. 59. 

7 View of Dordrecht, p. 72, from the Dresden Sketchbook, 
ca. 1648, black chalk on paper, sVs x 7V2 in. (130 x 
190 mm). H.-U. Beck 1972-87, vol. 1 (1972), no. 846, 
p. 271, and no. 846/72^ p. 278. 

8 The beurtvaart tows a small rowboat, probably 
used as a lifeboat; the barrel served as ballast to 
keep the rowboat from overturning. 

9 Braun and Hogenberg 1572-1617 (2008), p. 156. 

10 J. Michael Montias (Montias 1987 and 1990) was 
the first to recognize that the introduction of a 
technique using thin paint applied in a swift and 
straightforward manner was stimulated by 
lowered costs, which made it possible for Van 
Goyen and others to work for a broader market. 
Sluijter 1999 (2009) recognizes that the technical 
innovations should also be seen in terms of the 
artist’s desire for fame and profit and the 
importance attached to the appearance of 
naturalness. He attributes the introduction of 
the loose technique to the influx of immigrants 
from the Southern Netherlands, where it had 
already been practiced in the sixteenth century. 
Writing in 1604, Karel van Mander mentions a 
number of artists from the Southern Nether¬ 
lands who painted in a swift manner and were 
much admired by art lovers (Sluijter 1999 [2009], 

11 Sluijter 1999 (2009). 

12 Jan Jansz. Orlers and Jan Pietersz. Dou, 
Beschrijvinge derstad Leyden: Inhoudende’t Begin, Den 
Voortgang, Ende Den Wasdom Der Selver ...:In Desen 
Tweeden Druck, Boven Vele Vermeerderingen, Vergroot 
Met Een Derde Deel, Inhoudende Den StaetEnde 
Regeringe DerStad Ley den.... (1614; Leiden, 1641), 

p. 373, quoted in Sluijter 1999 (2009), p. 11. 


12 Van Goycn ck to entry) 

1 The lower part of the date was lost when the panel 
was cut. See Technical Report. 

2 Regarding Van Goyen’s views of Arnhem, see H.-U. 
Beck 1972-87, vol. 2 (1973), nos. 272-89. The view 
from the river is represented by no. 275, View of 
Arnhem across the Rhine from the South West, signed 
and dated 1642, oil on wood, 15 14 x 18% in. (38.7 x 
47.5 cm), with David M. Koetser, Ziirich, 1968. 

3 In 1684 John Locke (1632-1704) noted that it took 
“5I125st” to travel by wagon from Arnhem to 
Zutphen. Van Strien 1993, p. 316. According to Van 
Strien 1993, pp. 76-77, the post wagon, which was 
pulled by two horses and could take four 
passengers, traveled 7-8 kilometers per hour. The 
trip required the horses to be changed six times 
between the two cities. 

4 H.-U. Beck 1972-87, vol. 2 (1973), no. 272. 

5 H.-U. Beck 1972-87, vol. 2 (1973), nos. 282 and 283, 

6 Van Strien 1998, p. 79, quoting John Farrington, 
“An Account of a Journey through Holland, 
Frizeland, Westphalia, etc., in Severall Letters to 
Mr. N. H.,” British Library, London, MS Add. 
15570, fols. 246-47. Farrington’s visit to Arnhem 
took place on 17 November 1710. 

7 An unattributed view of Arnhem, possibly by Van 
Goyen, appears in the 1688 inventory of the estate 
of Jacob Danckers de Rij, an Amsterdam resident, 
whose connection to Arnhem, if any, is not known. 
Getty Provenance Index, Archival Inventories 
Database, N-241. 

13 Heda (back to entry) 

1 Filipczaki995. 

2 Hochstrasser 2007, p. 176, quoting Wim Klooster, 
Illicit Riches: Dutch Trade in the Caribbean, 1648-1795, 
Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land-, en 
Volkenkunde-Dutch Institute of Linguistics and 
Anthropology, Caribbean series 18 (Leiden, 1998), 
p. 189, notes that by about 1700, seven to eight 
million pounds of tobacco arrived from Virginia 
and Maryland in one year. 

3 Regarding tobacco, see Schama 1987, pp. 193-201, 
203-8,210-15; Gaskell 1987; and Hochstrasser 
2007, pp. 171-87. 

4 Gaskell 1987, p. 121. Dodoens was court physician 
to Rudolf II and later professor of medicine at the 
University of Leiden. His herbal Cruydeboeck was 
published in 1554 with 715 images. Next to the 
Bible it was the most translated book of the 

5 The Hague 1991a, no. 67, pp. 103-4. Petrus 
Scriverius, Saturnalia oftepoetisch vasten-avond spel, 
vervatende hetgebruyk en misbruyk vanden taback, 
trans. Samuel Ampzing (Haarlem, 1630). 

6 The pipe on the right is probably not actually 
broken but a shorter version. What may have 
previously been interpreted as the broken-off end 
of the pipe next to the brazier appears, instead, to 
be a single zwavelstick used for lighting the pipe 
from the brazier. 

7 The Hague 1991a, no. 67, p. 104. The painting, 
Vanitas Still Life, 1630-40, oil on wood, 13 x 1 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 /s in. 
(33 x 41.5 cm), private collection, is illustrated in 
color in Basel 1987, no. 29, where it is attributed to 
Pieter Claesz. It is not, however, included in 
Brunner-Bulst 2004. 

8 Noting that the closed watch is rare in a still life, 
the authors of Los Angeles-Boston-New York 
1981-82, pp. 52-53, comment, “The watch... 
might also suggest temperance, the careful 
regulation of life and its appetites, as it does in 
other Dutch paintings... the closed watch serves 
as a kind of metaphor for the artist’s method of 
concealing the eternal and inevitable truth 
behind the appearances of the everyday world.” 

9 Watches in vanitas paintings are typically open 
and have a ribbon and key attached to them, as in 
Abraham van Beyeren’s Banquet Still Life, dated 
1667 (Los Angeles County Museum of Art, inv. no. 

10 Sutton 1992, no. 15. 

11 Van Beverwijck 1636. 

12 Gaskell 1987, pp. 133-34. 

13 Gaskell 1987, p. 124; Hochstrasser 2007, p. 184. 
The less-refined and cheaper short-stem pipes 
continued to be smoked by the lower classes. 

14 Hochstrasser 2007, p. 182. The manufacture of 
pipes in Gouda was introduced by English 
mercenaries in 1614. The complicated process of 
producing a pipe, involving thirty steps before 
being sent to the kiln for firing, employed four 
thousand workers in Gouda. 

14 Van der Heyden (back to entry) 

1 The other paintings are The Herengracht, Amsterdam, 
oil on wood, 14% x 17% in. (36.5 x 44 cm) 

(Musee du Louvre, Paris, inv. no. R.F. 2340); Houses 
on the Herengracht, oil on wood, 14% x 17 14 in. 

( 37-5 x 44-4 cm) (Waddesdon Manor, inv. no. 2560); 
and fig. 14.2. 

2 Wallert 2006-7, pp- 93~96, fig. la, b; and 
Greenwich-Amsterdam 2006-7, no* H, pp* 136-38, 
%• i- 

3 Van der Heyden may have developed this 
procedure as a glasschrijver (glass painter/engraver), 
the profession in which he received his initial 

4 Van der Heyden created the light effects on the 
water with a series of short and parallel horizontal 
strokes through which the underpaint is visible. 

5 Houbraken 1718-21 (1976), vol. 3, p. 81; translation 
from Wallert 2006-7, p- 98. 

6 Quoted in Wallert 2006-7, P- 98. 

7 I. H. van Eeghen 1973, p. 133. 

8 Wallert 2006-7, pp- 98-101. 

9 Wallert 2006-7, p. 98. 

10 H. Schwarz 1966, p. 177, noted that Van der 
Heyden “seems to have made systematic use of 
the camera [obscura] in painting his city views 
with their sharp foreshortenings.” Wagner 1971, 
pp. 59-62, however, doubts his use of the camera 
obscura and says (p. 60) that there is no evidence 
in Van der Heyden’s drawings of his use of the 
device. L. de Vries 1984, pp. 59-62, also doubts 
his use of the camera obscura, citing evidence of 
one-point perspective. 

11 Greenwich-Amsterdam 2006-7, P- 70. 

12 Los Angeles-Boston-New York 1981-82, pp. 56-57. 

13 The following information regarding the 
buildings and their owners is based on Vier 
Eeuwen Herengracht 1976, pp. 455-61. 

14 Unlike the Sonnewyzer Huis, the Bartolotti Huis 
has not been altered. In 1670 it belonged to 
Guillielmo Bartolotti (1618-1674), the head of the 
Bartolotti banking house. The house had been 
built in 1615-20 as a single residence for Willem 
de Heuvel (d. 1634), who adopted the name 
Bartolotti after inheriting a fortune from his 
Italian uncle. 

15 Frederick served as raad (councilman) in 1657-65 
and scout (sheriff) of Amsterdam in 1658, and 
hoofdingeland (major landowner within an 
endyked area) of the Beemster. In 1637 he 
married Agatha Geelvinck (1617-1638), daughter 
of Jan Cornelis Geelvinck of number 174. 
Following her death, he married Eva Bicker in 

16 Moesign. 

17 See A. Walsh (forthcoming). 

18 See Provenance and n. 1 there. 

19 Evelyn 1983, p. 22. 

15,16 Hobbema (back to entries) 

1 Los Angeles-Boston-New York 1981-82, pp. 59-60. 

2 Bode 1907, p. 150, quoted in translation in Los 
Angeles-Boston-New York 1981-82, p. 61. 

3 Oil on canvas, 46% x 56% in. (119 x 143.7 cm), 
signed lower right. 

4 Stechow 1959, p. 13. 

17 Van HuySlim (back to entry) 

1 The decoration of terracotta vases is different in 
each painting. Although they relate generically to 
designs by the Flemish sculptor Frangois 
Duquesnoy (ca. 1594-1643), they were probably 
conceived by Van Huysum himself. Lot 89 in the 
Braamcamp catalogue (Bille 1961, vol. 2, p. 21) 
notes that the bas-relief was painted by J. de Wit, 
a reference to Jacob de Wit. 

2 De Lairesse 1738 (1712), p. 628. The inclusion of 
“Eenige Modellen van Bloemstukken” (lots 125, 
126; several models of flower pieces) in the context 
of what appears to be the sale of furniture in Van 
Huysum’s studio in 1749 may refer to drawings or, 
possibly, artificial flowers. 

3 Dezallier d’Argenville 1745-52, vol. 3 (1752), p. 318, 
noted in Delft-Houston 2006-7, P- 16. 

4 Quoted in translation in Dik and Wallert 1998, 

5 “Van Huysum painted his flower and fruit pieces 
for a long time on dark grounds, on which in his 
opinion, they would make a better impression. 
Everybody praised these pieces as excellent, as 
unsurpassable. Then our ten Kate candidly 
revealed an opposite opinion. He recommended 
to keep the backgrounds light, in order to give 
them a better impression. Van Huysum finally 
admitted to the advice of his friend. And it was 
only for the advice of ten Kate that from that time 
on he completely changed his manner.” Van 
Eijnden and Van der Willigen 1816-40, part 1, pp. 
312-13, quoted in translation by Dik and Wallert 
1998, p. 398. Segal in Delft-Houston 2006-7, P- 20, 
attributes the comment to Herman Tollius 
(1742-1822), a scholar of Dutch literature, who 
wrote in 1812. 


6 Van Gool 1750-51 (1971), vol. 2 (1751), p. 16, 
translation from Wallert 1999, p. 108. 

7 Van Hoogstraten 1678, pp. 307-8, translation 
from Wallert 1999, pp. 110-12. 

8 Delft-Houston 2006-7, P- 45 - 

9 C. Bruins, quoted by Van Gool 1750-51 (1971), vol. 

2 (1751), p. 25; translation by Segal in Delft- 
Houston 2006-7, P-18. 

10 See Appendix, Van Huysum, n. 2. 

11 Aelbert Cuyp portrayed Huist Meerdervoort in at 
least two paintings: The Avenue at Meerdervoort, ca. 
1651 (Wallace Collection, London, inv. no. P51), 
and Equestrian Portrait of Cornelis and Michiel Pompe 
van Meerdervoort with Their Tutor and Coachman 
(“Startingfor the Hunt”) (The Metropolitan 
Museum of Art, New York, inv. no. 32.100.20). 

The house is also represented in a black chalk and 
gray wash drawing by Roelant Roghman 
(1627-1692), Huis te Meerdervoort, near Dordrecht, 
1647 (The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New 
York, inv. no. 2001.636); Liedtke 2007, vol. 1, p. 144, 
fig. 29. 

12 Segal in Delft-Houston 2006-7, P-19, notes that 
Van Huysum probably sold paintings directly to 
his associates, such as Lambert ten Kate, Jan 
Gildemeester Jansz., and Gerrit Braamcamp, as 
well as Sybrand Feitama II (1694-1758). In 1751 
Van Gool 1750-51 (1971), vol. 2 (1751), p. 19, 
mentions that Braamcamp had only five works 
by Van Huysum: “four excellent works, in 
addition a beautiful landscape” (vier uit- 
muntende stukken, benevens een schoon 
Lantschap). The Carter painting may have been 
one of these four. Van Gool does not mention 
Pompe van Meerdevoort in his identification of 
important collectors of paintings by the artist. 

13 Of these (Bille 1961, vol. 2, nos. 90-92, pp. 22-22a), 
no. 92 (collection of the Duchess of Westminster, 
Eaton Hall) is set against a landscape. The second 
painting, no. 91, which is set against a black 
background, is in the collection of the Museum 
of Fine Arts, Houston: Still Life of Flowers and Fruit, 
ca. 1715, oil on wood, 31 14 x 23% in. (79.4 x 60.3 
cm), inv. no. 98.80. 

14 Bille 1961, vol. 1, p. 80. 

15 De Lairesse 1738 (1712) mentioned in numerous 
places in his chapters on architecture and 
landscape, in which he discusses the appropriate¬ 
ness of different paintings for different locations, 
the importance of having the light and 
perspective in pictures appear as natural to the 

16 Priemi997. 

17 According to his obituary in the New York Times, 

1 Jan. 1986, Arthur Hartog was a former vice 
chairman of the Dutch and British conglomerate 
Unilever, 1938-39 and 1946-51. On 7 December 
1941, while traveling in the Dutch East Indies, he 
was taken prisoner by the Japanese in Hong 
Kong. He was held for seven months in a prison 
camp until exchanged with other Allied 
nationals for Japanese prisoners. In 1951 he 
moved to the United States, where he lived in 
retirement and died in 1986. The formal 
declaration of the Netherlands Art Property 
Foundation (Stichting Nederlandisch Kunstbezit, 
SNK), The Hague, inv. no. 148, states that the 

eight paintings were returned by the SNK to 
Arthur Hartog, London, March 1948, noting that 
the paintings had been taken to be sold at 
auction through Van Marie en Bignell in The 
Hague (unidentified sale). The sale of the eight 
paintings realized 250,000 florins. Deducting the 
cost of the sale, 5,690.50 florins, the net proceeds 
of that forced sale were 244,319.50 florins: 50,000 
florins were paid to the account of A. Hartog, a 
sum that he was required to pay to the SNK in 
Amsterdam in March 1948, when the paintings 
were subsequently returned to him. 


Kalf (back to 

1 The painting was sold anonymously by Noortman 
Master Paintings, Maastricht, at Sotheby’s, New 
York, 28 Jan. 2010, lot 192. 

2 Meijer in Rotterdam-Aachen 2006-7, P- 76m. 
Referred to as peerdevoeten lepels, the utensils were 
apparently inspired by older Italian examples, 
deriving ultimately from ancient Roman 
precedents. Klijn 1987, pp. 82,88,95,96,97. The 
silver bowl is actually the base of a round box 
surrounded by chased figures in niches. 
Rotterdam-Aachen 2006-7, P- 74 , misidentified 
the lid of the box as a drinking vessel. The correct 
identification was made in the sale catalogue 
when the painting was sold at Sotheby’s, New 
York, 28 Jan. 2010, lot 192. 

3 Willem Kalf, Still Life with ChafingDish and Glass 
Ewer, oil on wood, 17% x 25 14 in. (45.5 x 64 cm), 
signed on the edge of the table: WKalf( formerly 
with Kunsthandel P. de Boer, Amsterdam). 
Grisebach 1974, no. A3, p. 97, fig. 171. For 
discussion of Grisebach’s questions about the 
attribution, see Giltaij and Meijer in Rotterdam- 
Aachen 2006-7, P- 70. 

4 Giltaij and Meijer in Rotterdam-Aachen 2006-7, 
p. 74. Significantly, De Heem, like Kalf, painted 

a number of rustic still lifes while living in Leiden 
before he moved to Antwerp. 

5 Formerly Lazaro collection, Madrid, inv. no. 11297. 

6 The comparison of the painting by De Heem to 
Still Life with a Silver-gilt Jug is made in Rotterdam- 
Aachen 2006-7, no-14, P- 74 , where it is illustrated 
as fig. 2; on p. 80 Giltaij notes that the same glass 
appears in the 1643 painting in Le Mans (see n. 7 
below) as well as in the work in Cologne (see n. 8 
below) and that at the J. Paul Getty Museum, 

Los Angeles ( Still Life with Ewer, Vessels, and 
Pomegranate, mid-i64os, oil on canvas, 41 Ysx 31% in. 
(104.5 x 80.6 cm), inv. no. 54.PA.1. 

7 Oil on canvas, 29 Vs x 22% in. (74 x 58 cm), signed 
and dated on side of table: W.KALFf 1643. 

8 See, for example. Still Life of Gilded Vessels and Plates 
(Musee des Beaux-Arts, Rouen, inv. no. 1833.5), oil 
on canvas, 52 ps x 28 in. (132.5 x 71 cm). A similar 
composition inscribed 1643 in the Wallraf- 
Richartz Museum, Cologne, to which the Carter 
painting was compared in Los Angeles-Boston- 
New York 1981-82, p. 126, is now considered a 
copy of a work by Kalf. 

9 Rotterdam-Aachen 2006-7, no. 14, p. 74. The vase 
is one of a series of antique vases (Bartsch nos. 
161-70). Numerous engravings of “antique” ewers 
were published by goldsmiths, especially from 
Nuremberg, during the late sixteenth and early 
seventeenth centuries to advertise their craft. 

10 Delft-Cambridge-Fort Worth 1988-89, p. 185, 
notes the resemblance of the ewer in the Carter 
painting to a pewter model made after a design 
by the French metalworker Frangois Briot in the 
last quarter of the sixteenth century. For Briot, 
see Demiani 1897. Regarding pewter models 
made in Nuremberg after designs by Briot, see 
Haedeke 1968, nos. 227-28, ill. Known as Edelzinn 
(precious pewter), the vessels, which were 
molded rather than chased, commanded high 
prices. The ewers were usually paired with a 
basin decorated with reliefs representing 
allegories of the seasons and continents of the 
world. The allegorical figure of Temperance or 
Mars often appears in the center of the basins as 
well as on the ewer. Although Segal (Delft- 
Cambridge-Fort Worth 1988-89, pp. 184-85) 
identifies the figure in the oval on the ewer in 
Kalf’s painting as Temperance, the male face on 
the neck of the vessel may indicate that the 
iconography refers to Mars. The decoration on a 
Mars ewer by Jacob Koch II and Caspar Endelein, 
Nuremberg, 1610, based on a design by Briot in 
the Kunstgewerbemuseum, Cologne, represents 
the allegorical figures of Peace, Abundance, and 
War. Haedeke 1968, no. 228, p. 151. 

11 Willem Kalf, Barn Interior, oil on wood, 12% x 
10H in. (32.2 x 26.2 cm), signed and dated lower 
right: WK1638. Rotterdam-Aachen 2006-7, no. 1. 

12 Documents were first published by Lammertse 
and Szanto 2006-7, pp-10-11. 

13 Willem Kalf, Peasants Outside at a Well, oil on wood, 
12% x 9 Vx in. (32 x 24 cm), signed and dated on 
the trough: KALF /1642, private collection. 
Rotterdam-Aachen 2006-7, no. 4. 

14 Kalf may have traveled en route to Middelburg, 
the second most important chapter of the Dutch 
East India Company, to accompany his brother, 
who died in 1640 on his way to the East Indies. 

15 Delft-Cambridge-Fort Worth 1988-89, p. 184, 
noted that the Carter painting “was signed and 
had indistinct vestiges of a date: w kalf 163(7).” 

16 Grisebach 1974, who had not seen the original, 
illustrated and mentioned it in his book without 
reporting a signature or date. Los Angeles- 
Boston-New York 1981-82, p. 124, noted, 
“Remains of a signature at lower center: KALF,” 
but on p. 126 stated that a recent examination 
revealed no trace of a date. No evidence of a 
signature or a date was found during a thorough 
examination of the painting by the technical 
staff at LACM A in April 2010. 

17 Rotterdam-Aachen 2006-7, no- H, p- 74 , where 
Fred Meijer refers to the Carter painting as a 
Paris still life. 

18 De Lairesse 1712 (1738), p. 555, quoted in Delft- 
Cambridge-Fort Worth 1988-89, pp. 183-84. 

19 Lunsingh Scheurleer 1974, p. 55, refers to wooden 
models sent from Europe. On p. 58, he notes, 
“Porcelain made in Chinese style and exported to 
Europe included simple or double-gourd flasks 

... brush pots, and also globular bottles (plate 50) 
with a long neck... on the body is a Chinese 
landscape with figures and on the neck the 


familiar tulip with leaves.” Pi. 50 is a blue-and- 
white vase from the Keramiekmuseum 
Princessehof, Leeuwarden. The author includes 
an illustration of a detail of a still life attributed 
to J. van Treek (1624-1684) showing a globular 
vase with a long neck very similar to that in the 
Carter painting. The painting has also been 
associated with Kalf. Although Grisebach 1984, 
no. C23, doubted the attribution to Kalf, the 
painting shares the porcelain vase with the 
Carter painting and the distinctive white linen 
tablecloth decorated with a line of embroidery 
with Still Life with a Silver-giltJug. 

19 Koninck (back to entry) 

1 Oil on canvas, 16 Va x 22% in. (41.3 x 58.1 cm). 

2 Oil on canvas, 54 Vi x 65 14 in. (138.4 x 166.4 cm). 

3 Los Angeles-Boston-New York 1981-82, p. 68. 

4 Van Thiel 1968, n.p. 

5 Gerson 1936 (1980), no. Z38, and Plomp 1997, no. 
226, p. 213, pi. XI. See also Cornfield, pen, wash, 
bister or ink, and gray wash, 5 Ya x 714 in. (134 x 
190 mm). Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, 
Rotterdam, inv. no. R. 75, Gerson 1936 (1980), no. 

6 In 1708 the steward of the stadholder estates in 
Breda employed the air barometer to record 
changes in temperature on the outside wall of a 
greenhouse and kept a diary of the daily weather 
conditions. De Jong 2000, p. 31. 

7 “Den 30 [June 1624]. Voormiddags graeu, duijster 
ende regen-weder zonder zonneschijn, maer de 
Naermiddag helder met sonneschyn, doch al den 
dag door woeij ende stormed het zeer sterck uit 
den Noortwesten.” D. Beck 1993, p. 124. 

8 30 June 1624: “dede van daer commende een 
groote wandel[ing] door ende door den Hage, als 
oock een stuck weegs tot buijten het Noort-eynde 
op den weg naar Schevelinge, vermoeyende myne 
wandelaers daer te ontmoeten ofte te zien 
aencomen van eenen hoogen droogen duijn, daer 
ick wel Vi uijr lang stont ende speculeerde over 
ende weder; ging ten 5 uijren near huijs.” D. Beck 
1993 , p-124- 

9 30 June 1624: “B. henrick, die ten 1 14 uijr met 
Breckerfelt near Schevelingen ging om de storm 
in de Zee te zien.” D. Beck 1993, p. 124. 

10 In contrast to the bird’s-eye view of the “world” 
painted by Pieter Bruegel and others during the 
sixteenth century, the seventeenth-century 
paintings depict the natural local landscape as a 
continuation of the viewer’s space. 

11 Van Strien 1993, p. 113. 

12 8 August 1624: “ick met Breckerf[elt] ende zijn 
vrouken (verzelt met anderen) ging op den 
haegschen kerck Tooren, daer wy wel 1 uijr lang 
onder de klocke lagen ende speculeerden van 
boven neder met een verreziender.” D. Beck 1993, 
p. 147. Churches often charged an admission fee 
to go up the tower. In Amsterdam the fee was one 
to two stuyvers (pennies). Van Strien 1993, p. 113. 

13 P. 333, emblem XLVII. 

14 For the artificial hill in the garden of the 
Mauritshuis, see Diedenhofen 1990, pp. 51-52. 
The rear part of the garden could not be seen 
from the Mauritshuis, so Johan Maurits had an 
octagonal grotto constructed, on top of which 
was an elevated viewing platform. The “hill” was 
covered with stones to simulate the appearance 
of rocks. Diedenhofen notes that similar rock 
mountains were constructed in England. For 
Huygens’s garden platform, see Van Pelt 1981, 

p. 158. Huygens originally built an obelisk on top 
of the artificial hill as a monument to the happy 
years he had spent with his wife, Susanna, who 
had died in 1637. After the monument was 
damaged by lightning, he replaced it with a 
tower, which could be climbed and provided 
magnificent views of the flat landscape of 
Holland, with the silhouettes of Leiden, Delft, 
and The Hague. Huygens included an illustra¬ 
tion of his garden and the hill with his poem 
“Hofwyck,” in Huygens 1653. W. de Vries 1990, fig. 1. 

15 Diedenhofen 1990. 

20 Van der Neer (back to entry) 

1 Schulz 2002, no. 14 as “probably late forties.” See 
also Schulz 2002, nos. 16 and 22 as “beginning of 
the fifties.” Regarding dating Van der Neer’s 
winter scenes, see Schulz 2002, pp. 81-88. The 
author notes that the lack of dates and apparent 
inconsistency of stylistic progression make it 
difficult to date the paintings. He does not suggest 
a date for the Carter painting but implies a date in 
the late forties or early fifties by his placement of 
the illustration between those paintings he 
assigns to that period. Los Angeles-Boston-New 
York 1981-82, p. 7205, compares the Carter 
painting to a group of small paintings dated 
1650-60: Schulz 2002, nos. 21,40, and 50. 

2 See, for example. Winter Scene with Bird Trap, signed 
and dated PBRVEGH [1601], oil on wood, 15 1 2 3 /s x 
22 3 * * /s in. (39 x 57 cm) (Kunsthistorisches Museum, 
Vienna, inv. no. Gemaldegalerie 625). 

21 Peeters (back to entry) 

1 Osias Beert’s paintings show a similar apprecia¬ 
tion for the different textures, but not the colors, 
of the sliced artichoke. See Osias Beert the Elder, 
Still Life with Oysters, Artichokes, and Olives, 1620, oil 
on wood, 2i 7 /s x 24 14 in. (55.5 x 61.5 cm), Muzeum 
Narodowe we Wroclawiu, Wroclaw, Poland, inv. 
no. VII-2282, illustrated in color in Vienna-Essen 
2002, p. 235. In the entry for the painting formerly 
attributed to Beert in Vienna-Essen 2002, no. 77, 
p. 234, Stephan Brakensiek discusses the Bacchic 
and sexual associations of the artichoke. 

2 Formerly with Otto Naumann Gallery, New York. 

3 Oil on panel, 17% x 13 % in. (45.5 x 33.5 cm), 

formerly with Richard Green Gallery, London. 

The same minimal representation of the edge of a 

wood table or ledge also appears in the paintings 
of Ambrosius Bosschaert the Elder (see cat. no. 4) 
and his followers, including Balthasar van der Ast 

(1593/94-165 7), who had close ties to Antwerp. 

4 See, for example, Frans Snyders, Still Life with Fruit 
and Vegetables, 68% x 101 in. (173.4 x 256.5 cm), 
Norton Simon Museum, Pasadena, inv. no. 

5 Bruyn 1996, p. 208. 

6 See E. de Jongh in Auckland-Wellington-Christ 
Church 1982, pp. 65-69, who recounts, among 
other examples, a legend that a skipper argued 
with Prince Maurits when the prince added a slice 
of cheese to a buttered piece of bread. Butter is 
not regularly included in the Haarlem paintings. 
Lammers 1979, pp. 404-8, attributes Eucharistic 
meaning to the paintings. 

7 John Ray, Observations Topographical, Moral, and 
Physiological, Made in a Journey through Part of the 
Low-Countries, Germany, Italy and France.... (London, 
1673), p. 43, quoted in Van Strien 1998, p. 366. 

8 Salt was also essential for the fishing industry as 
well as for pickling meat and curing bacon for 
consumption on long sea voyages. During the 
fifteenth century Flanders was an important 
center for salt refining, but with the sharp 
increase in marine salt shipments by the Dutch 
from France, Portugal, and Spain during the 
sixteenth century, Zeeland took over as the 
primary center for salt manufacturing. 
Hochstrasser 2007, p. 164. 

9 Hochstrasser 1999-2000, p. 75. 

10 Hochstrasser 2007, p. 16306. 

11 Contemporaries attributed the Dutch success in 
farming to the cool climate and the succulent 
meadows that had been enriched by improved 
methods of crop rotation, drainage, and 
fertilization. A mid-seventeenth-century author 
observed, “Also there are here in every respect 
very delightful pastures, which are rich and 
fruitful for the ploughman to cultivate, and sow 
what he wants. If on the green painted fields 
many oxen, cattle, and sheep are placed, the 
animals do wonderfully well. The cows give milk, 
butter, and cheese, to the nourishment of our 
lives....” (Oock zijn hier allesins seer lustige 
Landouwen, / Die vet en vruchtbaer zijn voor 

d’Ackerman te bouwen, / En zayen wat hij wil. Of 
groen geschildert velt, / Daer menigh os en koe, 
en schaep is op gestelt, / En tieren wonder wel. 

De Koeyen suyvel geven, / De Boter en de kaes, tot 
voedtsel van ons leven). Jacobus van Oudenhoven, 
Out-Hollandt, nuZuyt-Hollandt(i6sA), p- 401, 
quoted in Hengeveld 1865-70, vol. 1 (1865), p. 31, 
translation in A. Walsh 1985, p. 353. 

12 Quoted in Hengeveld 1865-70, vol. 1, p. 22, 
without attribution as “niet anders als met Botter 
en Kaes, en dat in zulken menighte, dat het voor 
den vreemden man een wonder schijnt: die daar 
niet minder als bij een heele Kaas of een vaatje 
Botter mach verkoft warden.” 

13 J. de Vries 1974, p. 160, table 4.12. On p. 144, he 
cites the accounts from 1570 to 1573 of a Friesian 
farmer, Rienck Hemmena, whose dairy cows each 
yielded an average of at least 1,350 liters of milk a 
year. Hengeveld 1865-70, vol. 1 (1865), p. 22, 
estimated that during the early seventeenth 
century, in the whole Noorderkwartier (northern 
Holland), twenty million pounds of cheese were 
made and sold a year in addition to what was 
used in the home. 


14 Jacob Cats, for example, wrote, “We sometimes 
eat meat and then once again fish if that comes 
from the sea or is in our pond. Our tables are 
provided in all kinds of ways with voorkost, fruit, 
roasted meat, all uncooked food.” (Wij eten 
somtijds vlees en dan eens weder vis / Of die 
komt uit de zee of in onz’ vij ver is / Onz’ tafels 
zijn voorzien op velerhande wijze / Met voorkost, 
fruit, gebraad, al ongekookte spijze). Quoted in 
Ten Berge 1979, p. 166. 

15 Johanna Suzanne de Jongh wrote her 
dissertation, “Holland und die Landschaft,” 
under Heinrich Wolfflin at the University of 
Berlin in 1903. Two years later in The Hague she 
married Adriaan Goekoop (1859-1914), a lawyer, 
businessman, amateur archaeologist, and 
collector. Goekoop-de Jongh shared her 
husband’s interest but continued throughout her 
life to write about Dutch paintings while living 
in Jacob Cats’s former home, Sorgvliet. 
“Hoofdstuk 11, Kunsthistorische en archeolo- 
gische mecenas Dr. Johanna Goekoop-de Jongh 
(1877-1946),” in Marcus-de Groot 2003, pp. 


22 Porcellis (back to entry) 

1 Getty Provenance Index, Archival Inventories 
Database, 10 Oct. 1668, inventory of Jan Miense 
Molenaer, Haarlem, N-5314, no. 91, “een grauwtje 
van Jan van Goyen.” 

2 Both Royal Collection Trust, London, inv. nos. 
RCIN 402744 and 402633. Gerlinde de Beer (De 
Beer 2013) returns to Porcellis the earlier 
attribution made by John Walsh in his 
dissertation and monographic article on Porcellis 
(J. Walsh 1974, p. 654), which had been rejected 
by Margarita Russell (Russell 1983, pp. 163-64, 
figs. 145,146), who reattributed the paintings to 
Hendrick Vroom. De Beer (pp. i6ff.) notes that the 
paintings, which were in the royal collection by 
1610, were acquired by Henry, Prince of Wales 

(d. 1612) and displayed in St. James’s Palace, where 
they were seen in 1613 by Johann Ernst I, Duke of 
Saxe-Weimar (Herzog von Sachsen Weimar). 

3 Quoted in Sluijter 2013, pp. 344-45. Samuel van 
Hoogstraten and Arnold Houbraken (1660-1719) 
relate a story of a competition among Frangois 
Knibbergen (1596-1674), Jan Porcellis, and Jan van 
Goyen (1596-1656) to determine who could paint 
the best picture in the course of a day. The story, 
which was probably apocryphal, allowed Van 
Hoogstraten to describe the characteristics of each 

4 Fondation Custodia Collection Frits Lugt, Institut 
Neerlandais, Paris, inv. no. J. 3441. Henkel 1931, 

pi. XLVII, and J. Walsh 1974, p. 737, fig. 27. 

5 The print is number 3 in the suite of twelve 
engravings titled leones Variarum Navium 
Hollandicarum (Hollstein Dutch 23). 

6 J. Walsh 1971, no. F25, p. 393. 

7 As if to emphasize that the sailors are in control, 
Porcellis included two porpoises whose dorsal fins 
are visible in the lower right next to a pole 
bobbing in the waves. Traditionally considered to 
be harbingers of good fortune for sailors, they 
were commonly found off the coast of Zeeland. 

23 Post ack to entry) 

1 For Marcgraf, see North 1979 and Whitehead 1979; 
for Marcgraf and Piso (Pies), see Guerra 1979. 

2 Buvelot 2004, pp. 32-33, discusses without conclu¬ 
sion the argument that, contrary to traditional 
thought, Eckhout actually may not have painted 
the large paintings in Brazil but in the Netherlands 
after his return. 

3 Caspar Barlaeus, quoted in Sousa-Leao 1973, p. 49. 

4 Sousa-Leao 1973, pp. 47-51, and The Hague 2004, 
pp. 137 - 44 - 

5 Sousa-Leao 1973, p. 49. Buvelot 2004, pp. 32-35, 
argues against the placement of the large paint¬ 
ings by Eckhout in the palace, pointing out that 
they would not have fit into the Mauritshuis. 

A drawing for one of the rooms on the second floor 
shows that Brazilian themes were planned for a 
room there; see Buvelot 2004, p. 34, fig. 31: anony¬ 
mous (Jacob van Campen?), Design for the Decoration 
of a Wall, after 1644, graphite, 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 /s x 13% in. 

(22 x 34 cm), Dutch Royal Collection, The Hague. 

6 Correa do Lago and Correa do Lago et al. 2007, 

p. 40. While still in Brazil, Johan Maurits wrote to 
his cousin the stadholder Frederik Hendrik 
requesting that he commission Post to execute a 
now-lost painting. Johan Maurits hoped that the 
unusually high payment would help the artist 
reestablish himself in Haarlem after his return 
from Brazil. 

7 The paintings (twelve still lifes, eight portraits, 
a large painting of native dancers, and a portrait 
of Johan Maurits himself) were given by Johan 
Maurits to his cousin Frederik III of Denmark in 
1654 and are now in the Nationalmuseet, 
Copenhagen. On Eckhout, see The Hague 2004 
and Brienen 2002 and 2006, with additional 
references. About Johan Maurits’s gift to Louis 
XIV, see Correa do Lago and Correa do Lago et al. 
2007, pp. 68-79. 

8 While in Brazil, Post painted only on canvas. After 
his return to the Netherlands, he switched to 
wood panels. 

9 Although still contained within the lower half 
of the composition, the horizon lines of paintings 
executed by Post after his return to the Nether¬ 
lands, when his interest was increasingly decora 
tive, are higher than those painted in the colony. 

10 According to Correa do Logo and Correa do Lago 
et al. 2007, p. 158, “Leonardo Dantas recognized 
the same house in one of the drawings serving as 
a basis for a print in Barlaeus’s book (D38).” 

11 See, for example. Homes of the Labradores Who Plant 
Sugar, oil on canvas, 41 x 51 Vs in. (104 x 130 cm), 
signed lower left, F Post, ca. 1650-55 (Musee du 
Louvre, Paris, inv. no. 1725), Correa do Lago and 
Correa do Lago et al. 2007, no. 110, ill. 

12 Correa do Lago and Correa do Lago et al. 2007, 
no. 27. 

13 Correia de Andrade 1979, p. 267, notes that Dutch 
buildings were typically constructed of brick 
with a two-sided roof; the bricks and tiles used 
for the Dutch buildings came from Europe as 
ballast on ships that would return laden with 
sugar. Portuguese buildings were constructed of 
stone or adobe, beams, and clay, with a four-sided 
roof. Leon Krempel’s suggestion, reported by 
Correa do Lago and Correa do Lago et al. 2007, 

p. 158, that the second story rests on an unfinished 
stone foundation is improbable because of the 
pile of rubble in the foreground and the broken 
appearance of the foundation, which does not 
correspond to the upper structure. 

14 Correa do Lago and Correa do Lago et al. 2007, 
p. 38. The Dutch typically acted primarily as 
merchants and were involved in trade and 
administration of the colony. Agricultural affairs 
remained in the hands of the Portuguese 
landowners. See Israel and Schwartz 2007 
regarding tolerance in Dutch Brazil. 

15 Correia de Andrade 1979, p. 266. 

16 Only European men were brought to the colony; 
thus, the mothers of children born in Brazil were 
indigenous people or slaves. 

17 Brienen 2002, p. 115. Correa do Lago and Correa 
do Lago et al. 2007, p. 38, notes that at a time 
when Olinda had only 3,000 free inhabitants, the 
governor imported 20,000 slaves from Africa. 

18 The Hague 1979-80, no. 107. 

19 See Correia de Andrade 1979, p. 266, and Brienen 

20 Papavero and Teixeira 2000, p. 21. The comments 
were made by Cuthbert Pudsey in hi s Journal of 

a Residence in Brazil, 1629-1640. Pudsey notes that 
the Brazilians were paid for their labor in linen 
for their clothes. 

21 Seen. 7 above. 

22 The physical conditions under which slaves 
worked on sugar plantations were extremely 
poor. They lacked adequate clothing and 
housing, and suffered from poor nutrition, 
harsh discipline, and cruel punishments. 
Schwartz 1992, p. 41. 

23 Ramakers 2002. Post’s conception contrasts, 
again, with that of Eckhout, who represented 
naked Tapuya dancers with spears preparing for 
war ( Dance of the Tapuya Indians, ca. 1640, 
Nationalmuseet, Copenhagen, inv. no. N.38B). 
Numerous contemporary commentators remark 
about Brazilians dancing. 

24 Correa do Lago and Correa do Lago et al. 2007, 
no. 52, p. 200. 

24 Pynacker (back to entry) 

1 In a letter to Frederick Mont dated 11 January 1973 
(Pynacker object file. Department of European 
Painting and Sculpture, LACMA), J. Nieuwstraten, 
director of the RKD-Nederlands Instituut voor 
Kunstgeschiedinis, The Hague, stated that he had 
discovered a very small monogram, AP, written in 
cursive on the log near the anchor points. In 1980, 
however, he noted that the painting was unsigned. 
Following Nieustraten’s original observations, Los 
Angeles-Boston-New York 1981-82, p. 80, notes 
the painting is signed on the bridge abutment, left 
center: AP. Laurie Harwood in Williamstown- 
Sarasota 1994-95, p* 44n3, questioned the 
signature and states, “The letters do not... 
conform with those conventionally used by the 
artist.” The recent examination of the painting, 
including infrared reflectography, at LACMA also 
did not detect any signature. See Technical Report. 


2 The tentative identification of the location as 
Schiedam was originally proposed by J. 
Nieuwstraten in his letter to Frederick Mont of 
n January 1973 and first published in Los 
Angeles-Boston-New York 1981-82, pp. 80 and 
83n2. It was subsequently confirmed by Laurie 
Harwood in Harwood 1988, no. 30, pp. 59-60, on 
p. 6on4, based on information from J. M. M. 
Jansen, archivist of Schiedam. Although now 
replaced by an iron bridge, a curved wooden 
bridge, like that portrayed in the painting, 
originally spanned the Koorte Haven. The 
foundations of the original bridge still remain. 

3 A lock located just to the left of the bridge as 
viewed in Pynacker’s painting then as now 
prevented passage farther down the wide canal. 

4 Los Angeles-Boston-New York 1981-82, p. 80. 

5 New York-London 2001, p. 340, notes, “Pynacker 
brings the light of a late afternoon on the 
Mediterranean to the north.” Although it is 
difficult to determine exact times of day, the 
Koorte Haven runs east-west, meeting the Lange 
Haven, which runs north-south, at its eastern 
end. Thus Pynacker’s view is toward the east. In 
depicting a local scene, presumably for a local 
client, Pynacker would probably have sought to 
describe the time of day accurately. 

6 In Los Angeles-Boston-New York 1981-82, pp. 80 
and 83m, Walsh and Schneider argue that the 
painting should be dated about 1650-53. 
Harwood, who originally accepted the broader 
date in Harwood 1988, pp. 59,6on3, in 
Williamstown-Sarasota 1994, p. 44, revised her 
opinion, stating, “A date of 1650 is now... more 
accurate because of the many features the picture 
shares with An Italian Seaport with Shipping and 
Figures, dated 1650 ([Harwood 1988] no. 3; private 

7 See cat. no. 2n3. The painting is in the Gallerie 
degli Uffizi, Florence. 

8 According to Harwood 1988, p. 60, Pynacker’s 
father, Christiaen Pijnacker, who appears in 
Schiedam archives as Christiaan Adamsz. 
Kerckhoven (b. ca. 1580 in Pynacker), owned the 
property between 1612 and 1660. 

9 The portrait was painted to hang with that 
of Pynacker’s wife, Eva Maria de Geest (panel, 

28 x 22 7 /s in. [71.5 x 57 cm]). Fries Museum. 
Leeuwarden, inv. no. 1957-666, which was painted 
by her father in 1652, Wybrand de Geest. The 
couple was wed in 1658. 

10 New York-London 2001, p. 11. Although Pynacker 
was probably living in Schiedam in 1650, he did 
not register in the painters’ guild there, suggest¬ 
ing that before he moved to Amsterdam in 1661, 
he was occupied primarily as a wine merchant 
and shipowner. He probably inherited the 
business from his father. In addition to being 

a wine merchant, Christiaen traded in herring 
and wheat and owned at least three ships: the 
Guide Staare, the Vlack, and the Sint Pieter. It is 
likely that the business was involved with 
trade with Livorno during the second half of the 
1640s, when the artist is believed to have traveled 
to Italy. 

11 E-mail from J. M. M. Jansen to the author, 1 June 
2010 (Pynacker object file. Department of 
European Painting and Sculpture, LACMA). De 
Wijs was a member of the city council ( vroedschap ) 
from 1640 on; sheriff (schepen), 1638-59; and 
burgomaster (burgemeester), 1662-71. 

12 I am grateful to Dr. Jansen for his research in the 
municipal archives of Schiedam. 

13 The connection to Jonassen was originally made 
by J. M. M. Jansen, who has, however, subse¬ 
quently not found any support for the 

25 Van Ruisdael and Berchem 

(back to entry) 

1 Regarding the collection of Dutch paintings, 
including The Great Oak, in the collection of 
Cardinal Gonzaga, see Slive 1987. 

2 For a discussion of Berchem’s reputation, see 
Slive 1987, pp. 176-80, and Seelig 2006. 

3 In addition to the Carter and Pasadena (see n. 4 
below) paintings, Berchem painted the staffage in 
a number of other landscapes by Van Ruisdael as 
late as 1665 to 1668, when the latter painted 
WoodedLandscapewithaFloodedRoad, oil on canvas, 
67% x 76% in. (171 x 194 cm), Musee du Louvre, 
Paris, inv. no. 1817 (Slive 2001a, no. 397). For Van 
Ruisdael and Berchem, see Slive 2001a, pp. 23-25, 
and Pijl 2006, pp. 87-89. Other artists who 
occasionally painted staffage in Ruisdael’s 
paintings included Adriaen van de Velde (see cat. 
no. 30), Thomas de Keyser (1596/97-1667), Dirk 
Wijntrack (before 1625-1678), and possibly Gerrit 
Battem (1636-1684). 

4 Three Great Trees in a Mountainous Landscape with a 
River, oil on canvas, 54 1 2 3 4 /s x 6 814 in. (138.1 x 173.1 
cm), from the late 1660s (Norton Simon Museum, 
Pasadena, inv. no. M.1969.33.P), is another of Van 
Ruisdael’s grand expressions of the heroic tree. 
Three monumental trees tenaciously clinging to 
the earth stand on the precipice of a hill 
overlooking a distant river valley. Light breaks 
through clouds that shroud the landscape and 
dramatically illuminates the trees, seemingly 
celebrating their heroic survival. Two entwined 
oaks, their leaves just beginning to take on 
autumnal coloring, serve as foils for a giant 
battered birch, its white bark glimmering in the 
sunlight. The birch’s violent history is empha¬ 
sized by the exposed red wood of the broken 
trunk and branches. Red also appears mixed amid 
the leaves of the oak trees and in patches on the 
ground, where broken branches and roots testify 
to the ravages of wind, water, and erosion. 

5 Los Angeles 1992-93, p. 135, with additional 
references, especially Walford 1991, p. 82. 

6 Los Angeles 1992-93. pp- 134 - 35 - On p. 135, the 
authors note, “The Carter painting may well be 
the exception to the rule in this regard, for the 
majority of landscapes in which Ruisdael had 

a collaborator... the staffage animates the scene 
but does not seem to communicate any particular 
message.” Slive 2001a, p. 250, rejects any 
attribution of meaning to the bones. 

7 Los Angeles 1992-93. p-135- 

8 De Bievre 1988. Following the withdrawal of the 
Spanish, Haarlem sought to rebuild the economy 
and the confidence and pride in the city. In 1584 
the city council brought ten thousand oak trees 
from the region of Amersfoort to restore the 
Haarlem Woods, an important symbol of the 
city’s glorious past. 

26 Van Ruisdael (back to entry) 

1 A print of the composition in reverse made by J. T. 
Prestel (1739-1808) identifies the painting as 
“peint par J. Ruisdael... / Le Coup de Soleil / 
D’apres le Tableau original de la Galerie de Soder 
appartenant a Mr. le Pr. de Brabeck” (Slive 2001a, 
fig. 97a). Since 1804, Ruisdael’s mountainscape at 
the Musee du Louvre, Paris, has been known as the 
Coup de soleil. 

2 Slive 2001a, nos. 82-108, pp. 111-29. 

3 Slive 2001a, no. 105, Wooded Landscape with a 
Grainfield and Cottages, oil on wood, 23% x 31% in. 
(60.5 x 85.5 cm), monogrammed and dated 1647, 
formerly Marquess of Zetland, Richmond; no. 78, 
ViewofNaarden, oil on wood, 13% x 26% in. (34.8 x 
67 cm), signed and dated 1647, Thyssen- 
Bornemisza Museum, Madrid, inv. no. 354 
(1930.99); and the etching no. E8, Grainfield at the 
Edge of a Wood, 1648. 

4 Ripe grainfields were traditionally used to 
represent the summer months of July and August 
in Netherlandish seasonal series (for example, 
Pieter Bruegel the Elder [ca. 1525-1569], The 
Harvesters, 1665, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 
New York, inv. no. 19.164). The growing of grain 
was more common in the Southern Netherlands 
than in the north, where the land was famously 
ideal for grazing cattle. Before the middle of the 
seventeenth century, the Dutch imported the 
majority of their grain from the Baltic, having 
realized that more profit could be gained by 
grazing cattle on their rich meadows than from 
the labor-intensive growing of grain. J. de Vries 
1974 . PP- 137 - 53 .169-73- By midcentury, however, 
the importation of grain was replaced by that 
grown on farms south and east of the Zuyder Zee 
and western Friesland. 

5 See, for example, Slive 2001a, no. 94, Grainfield in a 
Hilly Landscape, oil on canvas, 18 14 x 18 Vs in. (46 x 
46 cm). Palais des Beaux-Arts, Lille, inv. no. 224; no. 
96, Grainfield on a RollingPlain, oil on canvas, 17% x 
2i 5 6 /8 in. (45 x 55 cm), Earl of Northbrook, London; 
and no. 98, Landscape with a Wheatfield, oil on 
canvas, 15% x 18 in. (40 x 45.7 cm). The J. Paul 
Getty Museum, Los Angeles, inv. no. 83.PA.278. 

6 Liedtke 2007, vol. 2, no. 182, pp. 795-98, and Slive 
2001a, no. 101. 

7 Slive 2001a, p. 122, notes that Ruisdael introduced 
this contrast as early as 1647 in his View ofNaarden, 
no. 78. See n. 3 above. 


8 In 1650, based on Weston’s manuscript, although 
the author’s name was unknown at the time, 
Samuel Hartlib (ca. 1600-1662) published Samuel 
Hartlib: His Legacy, or an Enlargement of the Discourse 
of Husbandry Used in Brabant and Flanders; Wherin 
Are Bequeathed to the Common Wealth of England, More 
Outlandish and Domestic Experiments and Secrets, in 
Reference to Universall Husbandry. A second, 
corrected and enlarged, edition (London, 1652) 
recognized Weston as the author of the 
introduction, with Hartlib as the editor and the 
author of the rest of the book. The book was 
enormously popular and went through 
numerous editions. 

9 “Men kan aen de Natuer een ander wesen geven. / 
Als men in d’oeffening van Landbouw is 
bedreven: / En maecken Wildernis tot nut en 
vrugtbaer Landt.” Quoted in De Jong, Ramakers, 
Roodenburg, et al. 2002, p. 18. 

10 In his poem “Sorgvliet,” Cats takes particular 
pride in his ability to create a fruitful garden 
from barren land. 

11 Bezemer-Sellers 1990, p. 107. 

12 A. Walsh 1985. 

27 VanRuysdael (back to entry) 

1 Stechow 1938, pp. i9ff.; Stechow 1968, pp. 55-57. 

2 At the core of this efficient system were the 
trekschuiten, regularly scheduled passenger boats 
drawn by horses along canals built with capital 
investment between 1632 and 1665 to facilitate 
travel and communication.}, de Vries 1981; an 
etching, Ver (Spring), 1617, by Jan van de Velde II 
(1593-1641), illustrates a trekschuit. 

28 VanRuysdael (back to entry) 

1 Hendrik van Brederode (1531-1568) owned almost 
one-twelfth of Holland. As sovereign lord of 
Vianen and Ameide, he had his own mint and high 
court of justice. An anti-Catholic, he was the 
spokesman for the so-called Beggars, the 
noblemen who presented Margaret of Parma, 
governor of the Netherlands, with a petition 
drawn up at the castle in 1566. Taken over by the 
Spanish the following year, Batestein Castle was 
returned to the Brederode family in the 
seventeenth century and rebuilt in 1650 under 
Johan Wolfert van Brederode (1599-1655). The 
Brederode family became extinct in 1679, and, 
according to custom, the coat of arms was buried 
in a grave. Batestein was destroyed by fire started 
by bonfires built in celebration of the Peace of 
Rijswijk in 1697. Pot Brederode, see Koenhein 1999. 

2 Anonymous Utrecht student, “Notes of several 
passages and observations in Holland, etc., part of 
France, Savoy, Piemont [sic], Italy and Part of 
Germany from June 1699 to July 1702,” 
Huntington County Record Office, M 36/19. 
Quoted in Van Strien 1998, pp. 338-39; p. 395 
summarizes his itinerary. 

3 Niemeyer 1959. 

4 Rademaker 1725, no. 253: “View in the year 1630, 
of Vianen, of its Castel and of St Paul’s Tower, t’is 
here represented as facing the Lek’s River; the 
Gentlemen de Brederode were formerly the Lords of 
that Town. But that family being extincte, they in 
the year 1679 buried their Coat of arms in their 
grave.” Number 254, another image of Vianen, 
expands on the town’s history, explaining that 
the foundations of the castle were built in 1290 
and were entirely completed by or about 1372. 

5 J. de Vries 1981, especially pp. 5iff. 

6 J. de Vries 1981, pp. 48-49. 

29 Saenredam (back to entry) 

1 Madrid 2008-9, p- 88, places the date of departure 
between 29 May and 28 June 1636. 

2 Schwartz and Bok 1989, pp. i49ff. The authors 
note that the auction of the property of Huygens’s 
daughter on 6 November 1725 included three 
works by Saenredam. Since neither she nor her 
husband was a collector, the paintings are 
assumed to have come from her father, who knew 
the artist. Schwartz and Bok also discuss other 
evidence indicating connections between 
Huygens and Saenredam. 

3 Utrecht 2000-2001, p. 21. See pp. 21-23 for an 
extended description and history of the church, 
including a floor plan. Originally based on 
German models, the fagade and other elements, 
including the elegant nave, reflected Italian 

4 Although Reformed authorities forbade them to 
worship in the church since July 1585, the large 
Catholic community living in the area around the 
Mariakerk continued to meet secretly at the 
Gertrudiskapel, a clandestine church adjacent to 
their former church, starting about 1640. 

5 Saenredam drew the view across the nave from 
south to north (dated 30 June 1636; Het Utrechts 
Archief, inv. no. 28607) as well as from north to 
south (dated July 1636; Het Utrechts Archief, inv. 
no. 28610). He also recorded the view of the nave 
and choir from the southwest corner of the nave 
(dated 9 July 1636; National Gallery of Scotland, 
Edinburgh, inv. no. RSA525), the south aisle from 
west to east (dated 16 July 1636; Het Utrechts 
Archief, inv. no. 28609), and the transept to the 
southwest (dated 22 July 1636; Kupferstichkabinett, 
Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, inv. no. 13863). 

6 For a detailed discussion of Saenredam’s 
technique, see Van Heemstra 2002. 

7 For example, in the painting The West Facade of the 
Church of Saint Mary in Utrecht in the Thyssen- 
Bornemisza Collection, Madrid, inv. no. 362 
(1979.27). Gaskell 1990, pp. 270-74, especially 

p. 274 and fig. 3, p. 275, and Madrid 2008-9, 
especially pp. 53-61 (English ed., pp. 94-97). 

8 Los Angeles 2002, nos. 25,26, and n. 9. 

9 In Los Angeles-Boston-New York 1981-82, p. 96, 
this is incorrectly referred to as “the decorated 
blind window.” 

10 It is also possible that Saenredam worked out the 
lighting in a now-lost drawing. 

11 The illustration of the painting in the 1976 sale 
catalogue includes the figures of two men and a 
dog in the center and a third man behind a 
column on the far right. After purchasing the 
painting, Brod Gallery removed the central 
group but retained the man on the right, who 
was later removed when the painting was 
restored after the Carters acquired it. 

30 Adriaen van de Velde (back to e 

1 On 8 August 1624, a day that was “schoon ende 
helder weder met heeten sonneschijn,” David Beck 
notes that in the morning B. Steven had asked 
him if he wanted to go swimming with him at 
Scheveningen in the afternoon: “wert voormiddags 
onder de school aengesproken van B. Steven, 

mij vragende of ick des naermiddags met hem 
near Schevelingen wilde om ons te Baden.” 

D. Beck 1993, p. 147. 

2 D. Beck 1993, p. 109,5 June [1624]: “gingen wy 2... 
naer Schevelinge om een zeeluchtien, wiesschen 
de voeten in de Zee, wandelden Vz uyrken langs 
het strant, droncken een kanneken tot de schout, 
ende quamen ten 8 uijren thuijs.” 

3 Quoted in translation in Gibson 2000, p. 104. 

4 Cats 1880, vol. 2, p. 445. 

5 Van Strien 1993, pp. 191-92, notes that travelers 
were impressed that the road to Scheveningen, 
like other great public works, paid back the 
original investment within a matter of years. 

6 Sir Francis Child, June 1697, quoted in Van Strien 
1998, p. 196. 

7 Beach scenes that M. Robinson 1990, vol. 2, 
considers to be joint works by Willem van de 
Velde the Younger and Adriaen van de Velde are 
nos. 195 (pp. 858-61), 206 (pp. 856-58), 265 (pp. 
864-65), and 266 (pp. 865-67). Robinson 
attributes to Adriaen alone other paintings 
produced for the Van de Velde studio and signed 
W.V.V. or W.V.Velde with angular letters: nos. 21 (pp. 
863-64), 270 (pp. 854-55), 352 (pp. 846-47), 353 
(pp. 847-48), and 354 (pp- 848-49). 

8 M. Robinson 1990, vol. 2, nos. 352-54, which he 
dates about 1652. 

31 Esaias van de Velde ?ack to entry) 

1 Keyes 1984, no. 92, pi. 205, oil on wood, 7% x 13 in. 
(19.6 x 33 cm), signed and dated 1628. Formerly 
with Salomon Lilian. 

2 1988 Hollstein 1949-2010, vol. 32 (1988), 2 1 2 3 4 H6 x 
3 5 6 7 8 9 /s in. (68 x 92 mm), no. 30, pp. 268-69. 

3 The game of coif, which could be played on the 
ground or on ice, was a popular sport in the 
seventeenth century and is a standard detail in 
most winter scenes. Players used a curved stick or 
iron club attached to a stick to hit a wooden ball or 
one made of sheepskin stuffed with cow or calf 
hair. The goal was to hit the target (a post, a tree, a 
hole in the ground, etc.) with the fewest strokes. 


Players kept score on a tally stick. Bergen op Zoom 
etc. 1982, and Pieter Roelofs in Amsterdam- 
Washington 2009-10, p. 60. 

4 Only one of his winter scenes, a tondo painted 
about 1616 (Keyes 1984, no. 90) is related to 

a corresponding scene of summer (Keyes 1984, 
no. 130). 

5 Keyes 1984, pp. 231-32, nos. D 61, and D110, D132, 
D139, D152, D167. 

6 For a discussion of the weather conditions during 
the seventeenth century, see Van Suchtelen with 
van der Ploeg 2001-2. 

32 Willem van de Velde the Younger 

(back to entry) 

1 Weyschuiten are small Dutch boats used for fishing 
close to shore. 

2 M. Robinson 1973-74, vol. 2 (1974), no. 971, p. 23. 

3 The Hague 2002, no. 34, pp. 178-81. 

4 For the second Anglo-Dutch War (4 Mar. 1665-31 
July 1667), see Boxer 1974, pp. 25-40. 

5 M. Robinson 1990, vol. 2, p. 877. 

6 M. Robinson 1990, vol. 2, no. 60, p. 878. 

33 Willem van de Velde the Younger 

and workshop >ack to entry) 

1 The recent examination of the painting by Joseph 
Fronek, Hannah and Edward Carter Senior 
Conservator, Paintings, and Head of the 
Department of Paintings Conservation, LACMA, 
indicated that the signature and date were painted 
“wet into soft brown,” thus dispelling the question 
presented by M. Robinson 1990, vol. 1, p. 363, who 
noted, “The signature is not visible on the 
photograph taken by Cooper’s for Speelman in 
1958 (neg. 238302), but a faint signature may since 
have been strengthened.” The last digit of the date, 
which Robinson had said “appeared as though it 
might be a 7,” is correctly read as a 1. The signature 
is angular, which according to Robinson is typical 
of paintings produced in the studio of Willem van 
de Velde the Elder. 

2 A kaag is a type of cargo vessel designed for inland 

3 A similar yacht appears in a painting in the Liech¬ 
tenstein collection (M. Robinson 1990, no. 177), 

in which a barge carrying well-dressed passengers 
leaves the ship. There, however, the sun shines 
from the opposite direction, illuminating the port 
side of the yacht and the furled sails. 

4 The identification of the yacht as belonging to the 
Middelburg chamber was first reported to the 
Carters by Evert Douwes in 1973 and was 
supported by M. Robinson 1990, vol. 1, p. 363. 

5 By establishing the Dutch East India Company, 
the government sought to coordinate the 
lucrative trade with the East Indies and limit 
costly rivalries among the different independent 

6 M. Robinson 1990, vol. 1, p. 363. 

7 M. Robinson 1990, vol. 1, no. 415, p. 360. 

8 Rotterdam-Berlin 1996-97, pp. 418-20. 

34 De Vlieger (back to entry) 

1 See, for example, Adam Willaerts, The Embarkation 
of the Elector Palatine in the “Prince Royal”: at Margate, 
25April 1613, 1622 (Royal Museums Greenwich, inv. 
no. BHC0266). The beaching of a sperm whale on 
the sand between Scheveningen and Katwijk in 
1598 was recorded in a drawing by Hendrick 
Goltzius (1558-1617) engraved by Jacob Matham 


2 Already in 1604 Karel van Mander noted that the 
Haarlem painter Hendrick Cornelisz. Vroom 
(1566-1640) painted scenes of the coast. 

3 When sold at auction in 1946, the painting was 
identified as The Arrival of the Prince of Orange at 
Flushing, presumed to commemorate the assault 
on Antwerp in 1646 by the Dutch fleet under 
Admiral Maerten Halpertsz. Tromp. In support of 
this, Jan Kelch identified the ship on the left as 
Tromp’s flagship Aemilia (Los Angeles-Boston- 
New York 1981-82, addendum). The escutcheon 
on the stern of the ship is not, however, that of the 
Aemilia. Rather, it shows the triple X seal of 
Amsterdam flanked by a man on either side. 

4 I am grateful to Elisabeth Spits, Curator of Ship 
Models, Technical Drawings, and Vessels, 
Nationaal Scheepvaart Museum, Amsterdam, for 
her help in identifying the class of ship and flags 
(e-mail to the author, 19 Apr. 2010). 

5 I am very grateful to Tom van der Molen, Curator, 
Amsterdam Museum, Amsterdam, for identifying 
the location of the scene. 

6 See cat. no. 32. 

7 In addition to the crew, who can be seen scurrying 
about deck, the large ship in the foreground 
includes men attired in black clothes and hats 
who are undoubtedly passengers. 

8 For De Vlieger as a draftsman, see C. P. van Eeghen 
2006 and 2011. The inventory of the estate of the 
artist Jan van de Cappelle (1626-1679), who 
probably acquired the remainder of De Vlieger’s 
studio, included approximately thirteen hundred 
drawings and sketches as well as nine paintings 
by the painter. Russell 1975, pp. 48-57. C. P. van 
Eeghen 2006, p. 3, credits Van de Cappelle’s 
acquisition of De Vlieger’s drawings as the reason 
so many of his drawings are extant. 

9 Hollstein 1949-2010, vol. 41 (De Vlieger), 
greyhounds: nos. 11,12; and drafthorse in nos. 13,14. 

10 Cited in Los Angeles-Boston-New York 1981-82, 

11 Ruursi983. 

12 Ruurs 1983, pp. 189,191. 

13 Van Mander 1604, fols. 34v-35r, quoted in Ruurs 
1983, p. 189. Ruurs notes that Van Mander 
commented that his limited discussion of 
perspective, especially of architecture, was due to 
the publication of various books on perspective 
in Dutch, “namely, the books by Pieter van Aelst 
on geometry, perspective and architecture, Hans 
Bloem and others” (Van Mander 1604, fol. 55V). 

14 See Appendix, De Vlieger, n. 2. 

15 Very similar in outward appearance and 
construction to the Dutch man-of-war, the 
spiegelretourschip could be conscripted by the 
admiralty in times of war (, 
accessed 7 Oct. 2010). 

35 De Witte (back to entry) 

1 To prevent the monument from recalling the 
previous Catholic altar, the floor of the ambula¬ 
tory was raised to the level of the nave and tomb. 
Gout and Verschuyl 1989, pp. 52-53. In the 
twentieth century the ambulatory was raised above 
the level of the nave to accommodate the expanded 
royal crypt beneath the tomb of William I. 

2 Gout and Verschuyl 1989, p. 51. 

3 On the introduction of curtains within church 
views, see Heuer 1997. 

4 Michalski 2002 suggests the importance of 
Rembrandt’s 1648 etching for the development of 
the characteristic soaring Delft church interiors 
and the introduction of illusionistic curtains 
during the early 1650s. 

5 The jagged paint along the top edge of the 
painting may indicate that the panel was cut (see 
Technical Report). The vertical dimensions of the 
proposed original format would, however, have 
been abnormally disproportionate. In conversa¬ 
tion with the author at LACMA, 4 December 2009, 
Arthur Wheelock suggested that the illusion of 
the curtain might have originally extended onto 
the actual frame of the painting, on which the 
upper part of the curtain and railing would have 
been painted. 

6 On picture curtains and the Dutch church interior, 
see Heuer 1997. 

7 Pliny, 35-36,64-66. Pliny 1967-80, books 33-35, 
pp. 309-10. 

8 I am grateful here as elsewhere to Elma 
O’Donoghue, Conservator, Paintings; Silviu 
Boariu, Associate Conservator, Objects; and Yosi 
Pozeilov, Senior Photographer, Conservation, at 
LACMA, for their excellent analysis and imaging 
of the underdrawing of the painting. 

9 See, for example, Isaac Junius, Monument of 
William of Orange, 16 June 1657, blue-painted 
Dutch Delftware (Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv. 
no. BK-NM-12400-2). 

10 Regarding the rise in Orangist sentiments, 
especially in Delft in 1652, see Israel 1995, pp. 

7 i 7 ff. 

11 Joseph Taylor, 24 September 1707, quoted in Van 
Strien 1998, p. 126. 

12 Liedtke 2000, p. 83. 

13 Scholten 2003, pp. 82-83. The author notes that 
the significance of the virtues for the Dutch 
Republic was not recognized by foreign visitors, 
who associated them only with the prince. 


14 Wheelock 1977, pp. 181-82. 

15 Scholten 2003, pp. 211-31, especially pp. 211-23. 

16 For this interesting shift, see Vanhaelen 2005. 
Parival’s popular text was republished with 
revisions in numerous editions into the 
eighteenth century; Parival 1728 (1651). 

17 Scholten 2003, p. 213. 

18 Scholten 2003, p. 213, translation of Van 
Bleyswijck, Beschryvinge derStadt Delft 1667-81, 
vol. 1 (1667), p. 264. 

19 Montias 1987, p. 73, notes that the catalogue of 
the sale of Jacob Dissius in Delft, 16 May 1696, 
included three paintings by Emanuel de Witte: 
The Old Church in Amsterdam; The Tomb of the Old 
Prince; and “another church,” which, he believes 
were among those inherited from Johannes 
Vermeer’s patron Pieter van Ruyven (1624-1674). 
In a letter to Edward Carter, Montias speculates 
that the Carter paintings were those sold in 1696 
(De Witte object file. Department of European 
Painting and Sculpture, LACMA), but in Montias 
1989, p. 256, he refers to the paintings as only 
“fine examples of de Witte’s handling of these 
two subjects.” 

20 Getty Provenance Index, Archival Inventories 
Database, Gemeentearchief, Amsterdam (NAA 
1997, film no. 2163, fols. 264-20), inventory of the 
estate of Isaac Swartepaert, made by Harmen van 
Swoll and Gerrit van Uylenburgh, 17 Jan. 1671, 

“2’t Graff [N.B. doorgehaald (crossed out): 1 kerk 
van] van de Prins, door Emanuel de Wit f. 80.” 
Unfortunately, nothing is known about 
Swartepaert, who had a collection of forty-one 
paintings by major contemporary Dutch artists, 
including two by De Witte and a number by 
Jacob van Ruisdael and Allaert van Everdingen. 

21 Liedtke 2000, p. 83. 

36 De Witte (back to entry) 

1 Manke 1963, nos. 44ft For the history of the Oude 
Kerk, see Noach 1939. 

2 Houbraken 1718-21 (1976), vol. 1 (1718), p. 283. 

3 I am grateful to Elma O’Donoghue, Conservator, 
Paintings; Silviu Boariu, Associate Conservator, 
Objects; Yosi Pozeilov, Senior Photographer, 
Conservation; and Charlotte Eng, former 
Associate Scientist, Conservation, LACMA, for 
their excellent analysis and for capturing the 
underdrawing of this painting. 

4 Ivan Gaskell (Gaskell 1990, p. 478) noted De Witte 
made similar adjustments in Interior of a Gothic 
Church (Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum, Madrid, 
inv. no. 439 [1972.10]): “Infra-red photography and 
reflectography reveal that De Witte altered his 
composition extensively in the course of painting. 
... Not only is the armature of basic horizontals, 
verticals and diagonals within which the 
architectural elements are drawn revealed, but 
considerable changes to the form of the aisle 
arches and vaulting and to the chapel chevet can 
be discerned.” 

5 The screen is included in contemporary and later 
descriptions of Amsterdam, including Dapper 
1663 (1975), p. 379, and J. Wagenaar 1760-67, vol. 2 
(1765), p. 103, ill. opp. p. 101. 

6 De Witte’s manipulation of space to focus 
attention or reveal details of architecture is also 
evident in other paintings. In The Interior of the 
Oude Kerk, 1661 (Amsterdam Museum, on loan 
from the National Office of Cultural Heritage, inv. 
no. SB 4929), for example, De Witte eliminated 
the large chandelier in the crossing of the 
transept and north aisle to provide a view of the 
recently restored small organ. Middelkoop with 
Reichwein and Van Gent 2008, p. 126. 

7 Both the great organ and the smaller organ on the 
north aisle are described in Dapper 1663 (1975), 

p. 379 , and in J. Wagenaar 1760-67, vol. 2 (1765), 
p. 100. According to Wagenaar, the great organ 
cost 1,320 guilders, 2 stuivers, and 8 pennies. 
Repaired from time to time, it was replaced in 
1724. The smaller organ, which was placed against 
the pillar on the corner of the Sint-Jeroen Choir 
on the north side of the church, was restored in 
the middle of the seventeenth century. 

8 Regarding the organ controversy, see Bruinsma 
1954 . 

9 Bruinsma 1954, pp. 210-12. 

10 Van Strien 1993, p. 204. 

11 Bruinsma 1954, pp. 209-10. 

12 J. Wagenaar 1760-67 (1971-72), vol. 2 (1765), 
p. 100, “Ook plagt men, nog in de voorgaande 
eeuwe, alle avonden, tot vermaak der 
wandelaaren in de Oude Kerke, op het kleine 
Orgel te speelen.” 

13 Los Angeles-Boston-New York 1981-82, p. 118. 

The authors note that by 1659 the renovations of 
the small organ located at the corner of the 
crossing near the pulpit were completed. 

14 The sermon for the morning service was drawn 
from a passage in the Bible. Utrecht 1986, p. 15. 

15 J. Wagenaar 1760-67, vol. 2 (1765), p. 100. 

16 Quoted in Van Strien 1993, p. 205. 

17 Scholten 2003, p. 13. Lawrence 1992, p. 292, 
discusses the cult of Dutch naval heroes. The 
often elaborate monuments to Dutch sea 
captains served as patriotic shrines, “public 
memorials where Virtue’ was "eternalized 
through art.’” Placed within the context of the 
church, often in locations formerly occupied by 
Catholic altars, these patriotic heroes assumed 
increased status by association with religious 

18 William, Lord Fitzwilliam (1643-1719), “The 
Voyage of the Low Countrys and of Some Part of 
France, anno 1663,” Northampton, North¬ 
amptonshire Record Office, Fitzwilliam (Milton) 
Misc. volumes, vol. 234, May-June 1663, quoted 
in Van Strien 1998, pp. 29-30. The windows of 
the life of Mary are still extant in the Mary Chapel 
on the north side of the choir. The window 
commemorating the Peace of Munster is on the 
southern side of the ambulatory. Fitzwilliam’s 
identification of the scene as representing the 
coronation of the Spanish king was incorrect. 

19 Liedtke 2007, vol. 2, p. 963. 

20 The inventory dated 9 March 1709 is in the 
Gemeentearchief, Amsterdam, NAA 5001, fols. 
425-549. See the Getty Provenance Index, 
Archival Inventories Database. The painting was 
left to Pieter de Graeff’s son Cornelis de Graeff. 
Possibly the same painting appears as “a small 
church” (een kerkje) in the estate inventory of 
Gerrit de Graeff, 12 Feb.-io Apr. 1753, which 
notes that he was living at the same address as 
Pieter, on the Herengracht, between the 
Utrechtsestraat and the Reguliersgracht. This 
association seems more credible than that first 
suggested by J. Michael Montias in a letter to 
Edward Carter (De Witte object file. Department 
of European Painting and Sculpture, LACMA) 
that the Carter paintings were those sold in 1696 
by Jacob Dissius in Delft. Montias 1987, p. 73, 
notes that the catalogue of the sale of Jacob 
Dissius in Delft, 16 May 1696, included three 
paintings by Emanuel de Witte: The Old Church in 
Amsterdam; The Tomb of the Old Prince; and another 
church, which, he believes were among those 
inherited from Johannes Vermeer’s patron Pieter 
van Ruijven (1624-1674). In Montias 1989, p. 256, 
however, he refers to the paintings as only “fine 
examples of de Witte’s handling of the two 

21 Pronk began his career in Alkmaar and later 
worked in Amsterdam, initially as a copyist of 
Dutch masters of the seventeenth century and as 
a portrait painter. He is best known as a 
topographical artist. Knolle Online. 

22 J. Wagenaar 1760-67, vol. 2 (1765), p. 103 
describes the screen and the glass in the chapel 
with the coats of arms of De Graeff and Hooft, 
the latter in recognition of his wife, Catharina 




Provenance is the history of ownership, in this case, of paintings. There are various ways to 
record provenance. In the Carter catalogue, provenance is written in the active tense, begin¬ 
ning with the earliest documented owner and progressing chronologically to Mr. and Mrs. 
Carter and LACMA. 


Records of ownership are found in inventories (personal and dealer archives), sales catalogues, 
exhibitions, museum loan documents, and in contemporary newspaper notices or articles 
about a collection. Catalogues raisonnes and general articles are less secure because authors 
sometimes rely on outdated information about private collections that is not publicly 


The names of owners are followed, when known, by life dates placed in parentheses. Any titles, 
such as due de Berry, follow the dates, followed by the owner's residence, which may be an 
estate or city or both. If the previous owner and/or the date of acquisition of the painting is 
not known, the first reference to that person's ownership (typically an exhibition or article) is 
noted, for example, "in 1904." Dealers' names are included when they held or handled a 
painting, with their names enclosed in brackets. The dealer's name is followed by his place of 
business. For example: 

J. M. Redele, Dordrecht, by 1952, sold 1978 through; [G. Cramer, The Hague, to]; Mr. and 
Mrs. Edward William Carter, Los Angeles, given 2003 to; LACMA. 

Indications of Transfer 

When possible, how a painting passed from one owner to another is recorded: sale, inheri¬ 
tance, gift. An owner's name is separated from the next known owner by either a semicolon or 
a period, depending on whether the means of transfer is known. 

When the means of transfer (sale, bequest, gift) is known, it is noted at the end of the previous 
owner's name, followed by a semicolon and the name of the subsequent owner. The name of 
each successive owner thereby is immediately noted as a new entry. When it is a bequest or gift, 
the relationship of the two owners is included in the record of the previous owner. For 

Charles T. Fisher (1880-1963), Detroit, by inheritance to his son; Thomas K. Fisher 
(1920-1988), Detroit (sale, London, Christie's, 28 June 1974, lot 79, ill., bought in, sold 
1977 through); [Richard L. Feigen, New York, to]; Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter, 

Los Angeles, given 1996 to; LACMA. 


When a painting is sold through an auction house, the name and location of the seller are 
followed by information about the sale placed in parentheses (sale, city, auction house, date of 
sale, lot number, and illustration if included). If the identity of the seller is not known, he or 
she is identified as "anonymous” For example: 

Cornells Hoogendijk (1866-1911), The Hague, by 1899 (sale, Amsterdam, F. Muller & Co., 
14 May 1912, lot 23, ill., sold for 10,000 florins to); Piek, The Hague. Anonymous (sale, 
Amsterdam, Frederik Muller & Cie, 20 June 1916, lot 192, sold for 10,400 florins to); 
[Frederik Muller & Cie.]. 

When there is no illustration, the catalogue description may be included following the lot 
number to identify the painting. If the painting was sold and the price known, it is noted at 
the end within parentheses, followed by a semicolon and the name of the buyer, who may or 
may not be identifiable (see previous example). 

The same format is followed for dealers. When it is known to whom the dealer sold the 
painting, the sale is noted within square brackets. When it is known that the dealer sold the 
painting on consignment, that is signaled by the word "through.” For example: 

Sidney James van den Bergh (1898-1977), Wassenaar, sold 1972 through; [G. Cramer, The 
Hague, to]; Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter, Los Angeles. 

When the means of transfer of the painting from one owner to another is not known, the 
entries are separated by a period, indicating a break in knowledge and the possibility of an 
intervening owner. 

[Frederik Muller & Cie.]. Michiel Onnes (1878-1972), Kasteel Nijenrode, Breukelen. 

[J. Goudstikker, Amsterdam, by 1920]. Miss A. Goekoop, Wassenaar, sold to; [Nystad, The 
Hague, sold 1982 to]; Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter, Los Angeles, given 2009 to; 

Additional biographical information, when known, can be found in the endnotes. 



1 (back to entry) 

Hendrick Avercamp 


Winter Scene on a Frozen Canal, ca. 1620 
Oil on wood, 14% x 25^ in. 

(37.2x64.8 cm) 

Signed at right, on sled: HA 

Partial gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter 
and purchased with funds provided by The 
Ahmanson Foundation, the Paul Rodman Mabury 
Collection, the William Randolph Hearst Collection, 
the Michael J. Connell Foundation, the Marion 
Davies Collection, Mr. and Mrs. Lauritz Melchior, 
Mr. and Mrs. R. Stanton Avery, the Estate of Anita M. 
Baldwin by exchange, and Hannah L. Carter 


Jan Carel Elias (1837-1900), graaf van 
Lijnden, Arnhem and The Hague, in 
1881, bequeathed to his brother-in-law; 1 
Johan Willem Frederik (1844-1903), 2 
ridder Huyssen van Kattendijke, The 
Hague, bequeathed to the son of Jan 
Carel Elias; Johan Maurits Dideric 
(1864-1930), graaf van Lynden, Huis 
Keukenhof, Lisse, bequeathed to his 
wife; Aurelia Elisabeth (1875-1949), 
gravin van Limburg Stirum, vrouwe van 
Noordwijkerhout, Huis Keukenhof, 
Lisse, bequeathed to her son; Jan Carel 
Elias (1912-2003), graaf van Lynden, 
sold after 1951 to; [Nystad Antiquairs, 
Lochem, sold by 1954 to]; Sidney James 
van den Bergh (1898-1977), Wassenaar, 
sold 1972 through; 3 [G. Cramer, The 
Hague, to]; Mr. and Mrs. Edward 
William Carter, Los Angeles, partial gift 
and partial sale by the heirs 2009 to; 


The Hague 1881, no. 70, as dated 1622, 
lent by J. C. E., graaf van Lijnden; 
London 1929, no. 81, ill., lent by Count J. 
de Lynden; The Hague 1929, no. 1, ill., 

lent by Douairiere J. graaf van Lynden, 
Huize Keukenhof; Brussels 1935, vol. 1, 
no. 701; on deposit, Stedelijk Museum, 
De Lakenhal, Leiden, 22 Oct. 1943-Aug. 
1945; Leiden 1945, no. 40; Leiden 
1950-51, no. 2, p. 1, lent by “N. N.” (J. C. 
E., graaf van Lynden); 4 Rotterdam 1955, 
no. 40, pi. 44, lent by Sidney J. van den 
Bergh; Laren 1959, no. 24, fig. 15; 5 Leiden 
1965, no. 4, fig. 1:0; on loan, The Metro¬ 
politan Museum of Art, New York, 

6 June-16 Aug. 1972; Los Angeles- 
Boston-New York 1981-82, no. 1, pp. 3-7, 
ill.; Amsterdam-Boston-Philadelphia 
1987-88, no. 7, pp. 259-61, ill.; 

Los Angeles 1992-93, no. 1, pp. 3-7, ill.; 
Amsterdam-Washington 2009-10 
(Washington only), pp. 48,51,70, 73 , 
143 - 44 , 145 , 154 , 159 ,160,161-63, fig. 42, 
color details, figs. 58,80,90,173,176, 

179,194,198,211,213,214, full p. 141; 
Boston-Kansas City 2015-16, no. 70, 
pp. 63,250,251 (detail), 252,261, ill. 


Bredius et al. 1897-1904, vol. 3 (1901-4), 
pp. 96, ill., 98; BeeldendeKunst 17, no. 6 
(April 1930), nos. 43,43a, pp. 43 ~ 44 , ill*; 
Welcker 1933, no. S 23, pp. 87,205, pi. X; 
“Zomertentoonstelling 1955,” p. 104, fig. 
22, as collection S. J. van den Bergh; A. B. 
de Vries 1959, pi. 6; Plietzsch i960, p. 86, 
fig. 146; The Hague 1962, ill., as collec¬ 
tion S. J. van den Bergh; A. B. de Vries 
1964, pp. 355-57, ill. Ill; A. B. de Vries et 
al. 1968, p. 16, ill.; Paris 1972, no. 63, 
p. 32; J. Walsh 1974a, p. 348; Welcker and 
Hensbroek-van der Poel 1979, nos. S 23, 

S 58.1, pp. 87,207,214, fig. xxv, pi. X; 
Blankert 1982, p. 28; Keyes 1982, 
p. 55023; Sutton 1986, p. 129; Cambridge- 
Montreal 1988, p. 59, fig. 2; The Hague- 
San Francisco 1990-91, p. 146, fig. 3; 
Amsterdam 1993-94, pp- 635-36, fig. 306a; 
Washington 1995, pp. 12-13, fig- 4 ; 
Westermann 1996, pp. 106-7, fig- 76; 

The Hague 2001-2, pp. 58-59, fig. 47, 
p. i6on2; Keukenhof 2009, pp. 22-23, 
26-27; Marandel and Walsh et al. 2019, 
no. 1, pp. 18-21, ill. 


1 He was made a ridder (knight) in 1814 and in 1818 a 
graaf (count, earl). For the Van Lynden family, see 
Keukenhof 2009. 

2 He married Sara Agatha, baroness van Lynden, in 


3 Sidney James van den Bergh, who was a major 
collector of seventeenth-century Dutch paintings, 
was a senior manager of Unilever. In 1959 he 
served as minister of defense for the Netherlands. 

4 According to the exhibition’s label formerly 
attached to the back of the panel. 

5 The catalogue notes that the lenders to the 
exhibition wished to remain anonymous. An 
annotation to the title page of a copy of the 
catalogue at the RKD-Nederlands Instituut voor 
Kunstgeschiedinis, The Hague, however, 
identifies the lenders as S. J. van den Bergh, 
Wassenaar, and Dr. H. A. Wetzlar, Amsterdam. 

2 (back to entry) 

Gerrit Adriaensz. 


The Nieuwezijds Voorburgwal with the 

Flower and Tree Markets in Amsterdam, 

ca. 1675 

Oil on wood, 14 Vi x 18% in. 

(37 x47.6 cm) 

Signed lower right, on canal bulkhead: 

Gerrit Berck Hey de 

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter 



H. Becker, 1 Dortmund. Mrs. E. F. Dunn 
(sale, London, Sotheby’s, 6 Apr. 1949, lot 
72). [Minken, London]. [R de Boer, 
Amsterdam, by 1952 until at least 1959]. 2 
J. van Duyvendijk, Scheveningen. [Thos. 
Agnew and Sons, London]. [Newhouse 
Galleries, New York, sold 1973 to]; 
Edward William Carter, Los Angeles, 
resold 1974 to; [Newhouse Galleries, 
New York]. [Robert Noortman, London, 
sold 1976 to]; Mr. and Mrs. Edward 
William Carter, given 2009 to; LACMA. 



Amsterdam 1952, no. 6, fig. 48; Utrecht 
1953 ? no. 10? pi* 48; Dortmund 1954, 
no. 54, ill.; Amsterdam 1957-58; Amster¬ 
dam 1959; New York 1974-75, no. 115, 
ill., lent by Newhouse Galleries; Los 
Angeles-Boston-New York 1981-82, no. 

2, pp. 8-11, ill.; Los Angeles 1992-93, no. 
2, pp. 8-11, ill.; The Hague-Washington 
2008-9 (Washington only), no. 11, pp. 
90-93,218, ill. 


Ebbinge-Wubben 1969, no. 30, p. 35; 
Weltkunst 1974; Basel 1987, p. 8203; 
Gaskell 1990, pp. 296-9706; Peeters in 
Amsterdam 1990-91, pp. 99-101; 
Lawrence 1991, p. 59054a; Amsterdam 
1997 ? pp- 46-47,96-97; Kloek and 
Middelkoop 2012, p. 26. 


1 Hans Becker was the son of Johan Heinrich Becker, 
Amsterdam (b. 1878), director of Tabakkantoor 
Stokhuizen en Brom, Amsterdam. 

2 Labels formerly on the back of the panel indicate 
that the painting was included in De Boer’s 
winter exhibition of 1957-58 and summer 
exhibition of 1959. 

3 (back to entry) 

Anthonie van Borssom 


Panoramic Landscape nearRhenen with 
theHuis terLede, ca. 1666 
Oil on canvas, 20 x 25 1 546 in. 

(50.8 x 65.9 cm) 

Signed lower right: ABdr/[illegible] 16 

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter 


Dutch art market, sold ca. 1914 to; 
Michiel Maximiliaan van Valkenburg 
(1866-1950), 1 Huis Ross, Lochem, Laren 
(as by Adriaen van de Velde), sold 1944 
to; [Goudstikker/Miedl, Amsterdam, 
taken by Alois Miedl (1903-1990) to 
Bilbao, Spain, recovered in his posses¬ 
sion in Bilbao, 1945, and returned to]; 
Michiel Maximiliaan van Valkenburg; 2 

[G. Cramer, The Hague, by 1970, sold 
1971 as by Anthonie van Borssom to]; Mr. 
and Mrs. Edward William Carter, Los 
Angeles, given 2009 to; LACMA. 


Rotterdam 1938, no. 152, p. 37, p. 104, 
fig. 163, as by Adriaen van de Velde; 

Los Angeles-Boston-New York 1981-82, 
no. 3, pp. 12-14, ill., as by Van Borssom; 
Los Angeles 1992-93, no. 3, pp. 12-14, ill-? 
as by Van Borssom. 


Thieme-Becker 1907-50, vol. 34 (1940), 
p. 198, as by Adriaen van de Velde; The 
Hague 1970, p. 27, ill., as by Adriaen van 
de Velde; Sumowski 1983, vol. 1, no. 193, 
pp. 428, ill. 436, as by Van Borssom. 


1 Michiel Maximiliaan van Valkenburg was a lawyer 
in Rotterdam. Following his death in 1950, a sale 
of his collection was held by Nijstad, Lochem, 

on 29-30 May 1951. The Carter painting was not 
included in the sale. 

2 Archive of the Netherlands Art Property 
Foundation (Stichting Nederlandisch Kunstbezit, 
SNK), The Hague, Aangifte-formulier, no. 3531, 
dated 1 December 1945. Alois Miedl was the Nazi 
banker who purchased the Goudstikker firm in 
Amsterdam after Jacques Goudstikker fled the 
Netherlands and then died in 1940. Miedl sold 
approximately six hundred paintings to 
Hermann Goring (1893-1946). In a letter from 
Cramer to Carter dated 27 May 1971 (Hans Cramer 
Records, Box 110, Folder 4, Getty Research 
Institute), Cramer notes, “The picture came from 
the Miedl estate and I bought it in Germany.” 
Cramer’s exact source for the picture is not 

4 (back to entry) 

Ambrosius Bosschaert 
the Elder 


Bouquet of Flowers on a Ledge , 1619 
Oil on copper, 11 x 9^6 in. (27.9 x 23 cm) 
Signed and dated lower right, on the 
sill: AB1619 

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward W. Carter 


Ulric Palm, Stockholm, before 1934, sold 
through; 1 [G. Stenman, Stockholm, to]; 
Dr. Einar Perman (1893-1976), Stock¬ 
holm, by 1936. Anne-Marie (Mrs. John) 
Goelet (1900-1988), New York and 
Amblainville, Oise, France, in 1963. 2 

Private collection, Boston, 1966-67. 
[Newhouse Galleries, New York, sold 
1976 to]; Mr. and Mrs. Edward William 
Carter, Los Angeles, given 2003 to; 


Amsterdam 1934, no. 251, p. 20, ill., as 
Stockholm private collection; Paris 
1936 - 37 ? no. 3, pp. 6-7, pi. 1, lent by Dr. 
Perman; 3 Philadelphia 1963, frontis¬ 
piece, p. 105; on loan, Museum of Fine 
Arts, Boston, 1966-67; San Francisco- 
Toledo-Boston 1966-67, no. 98, ill.; on 
loan, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 
New York, 6 Apr.-July 1976; Los Angeles- 
Boston-New York 1981-82, no. 4, pp. 15- 
19, ill.; Los Angeles 1992-93, no. 4, 
pp. 15-19, ill.; San Francisco-Baltimore- 
London 1997-98, no. 75, pp. 46,48, 
356 - 59 , 452 , ill. 


Bergstrom 1947, p. 72, fig. 51, ill. 1; Van 
Gelder in Oxford 1950, p. 54, under no. 
15; Paris 1952, p. 40; Bol 1955? PP-103-4? 
107, fig. 7; Hairs 1955, p. 90; Leymarie 
1956, p. 75, ill. p. 76, as Perman collec¬ 
tion; Bergstrom 1956, pp. 62,65,69, 
frontispiece, as Perman collection; Bol 
i960, no. 46, pp. 20,30-31? 67, pi. 30; 
Mitchell 1973, p. 57, as belonging to Mrs. 
Goelet; Amsterdam 1977, p- 62; Bol 1981, 
pp. 524,526, fig. 5; Shore 1980, n.p.; 

J. Walsh 1981, p. 389, ill. XIV; Bol 1982, 

PP- 49 ? 50, fig. 5; Segal 1984? p. 38; Hairs 
1985, pp. 207,210,459, mistakenly as 
still in the collection of Mrs. Goelet; 
Goedde 1989, p. 44n22; Segal 1990, 
under no. 34; The Hague-San Francisco 
1990-91? P-109; Bol 1993? ill- p- 44 ; 
Amsterdam 1993-94, p- 93? fig-162; 
Taylor 1995, p. 137; Roland Michel et al. 
2002, p. 5, fig. 3; Oxford 2003, under 
no. 17, pp. 178,179n2; “The Gift of Mr. 
and Mrs. Carter” 2003, p. 20, fig. 1; 
Marandel 2004; Pennisi 2007, p. 155, 
fig. 4.11; Meyers 2011, p. 367, fig. 8; 
Salem-San Francisco-Houston 2011-12, 
p. 94; Lokin 2016, p. 26, fig. 5. 



1 Amsterdam 1934 identifies the lender as a private 
collection in Stockholm, previously Palm. 
According to a letter dated 26 January 1984 from 
Dr. Einar Perman to Mr. and Mrs. Carter 
(Bosschaert object file. Department of European 
Painting and Sculpture, LACMA), Ulric Palm was 
for a long time the art adviser to Bukowski, the 
leading art gallery of Stockholm. Palm was a good 
friend of Perman, who purchased the painting 
from Palm through the dealer Stenman. 

2 The Goelet family lived in France and New York. 

A letter dated 23 December 1981 from the still-life 
scholar Ingvar Bergstrom to Scott Schaeffer, then 
curator of European paintings at LACMA 
(Bosschaert object file. Department of European 
Painting and Sculpture, LACMA) remarks that he 
had known the painting for “nearly fifty years. I 
am glad now to know its present whereabouts.” 

3 Los Angeles-Boston-New York 1981-82 and Los 
Angeles 1992-93, no. 4, p. 14, mistakenly state that 
the painting was included as no. 11 in Het 
Hollandse stilleven, Stedelijk van Abbemuseum, 
Eindhoven, 1957, and the owner is identified as 
Sidney van den Bergh. According to the 
illustration in the catalogue of the Van den Bergh 
collection (A. B. 

de Vries et al. 1968, no. 28, ill.), that painting 
represents a bouquet in a niche. 

5 (back to entry) 

Jan Dirksz. Both 

(ca. 1618-1652) 

Landscape with a Draftsman, 

ca. 1645-50 

Oil on canvas, 40% x 46% in. 

(103.5 x 117-8 cm) 

Signed lower left: JBoth 

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter 



[Possibly Agnew’s, London, 1919]. 1 
[Shickman Gallery, New York, sold 1968 
to]; Mr. and Mrs. Malcolm Farmer, Jr., 
Providence, RI, sold 1977 to; [Shickman 
Gallery, New York, sold 1979 to]; 

[Nystad Gallery, The Hague, sold 1979 
to]; Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter, 
Los Angeles, given 2009 to; LACMA. 


New York 1968, no. 11; Los Angeles- 
Boston-New York 1981-82, no. 5, pp. 
20-23, ill.; on loan. The Metropolitan 
Museum of Art, New York, Apr.-July 
1985; New York 1985, no. 8, pp. 77-79, 

ill.; New York 1985a, p. 20, ill. p. 20, and 
cover; Montreal 1990, no. 15, pp. 82-83, 
ill.; Los Angeles 1992-93, no. 5, pp. 
20-23, ill.; Madrid 1994-95, no-12, pp. 
86-87, ill- 


Burke 1976, no. 96, pp. 238-39, as “An 
earlier version of the painting now in 
Montreal, Coll. D. Carter (cat. no. 76)”; 2 
Amsterdam-B os ton-Philadelphia 
1987-88, p. 279, fig. 1; Harwood 1988, 
p. 62, fig. 32; Williamstown-Sarasota 
1994-95, p- 21, fig. 13; San Francisco- 
Baltimore-London 1997-98, p. 345, fig. 1. 


1 According to the mount of an otherwise 
undescribed photograph in the Witt Library, 
London. The photograph may also represent the 
second version of the painting owned by David 
Carter. The painting is possibly identical with no. 
5324. “Both, Landscape with Figures,” acquired by 
Agnew’s from A. Wertheimer on 5 February 1919 
and sold to Liggatt on 30 August 1923. That 
painting is described as 39 x 50 in. Records of 
Thomas Agnew & Sons, Ltd., Getty Research 

2 Burke suggests that the Edward Carter painting, 
which was unknown to Hofstede de Groot, may 
have been HdG 1907-28, vol. 9 (1926), no. 94a, but 
Walsh and Schneider in Los Angeles-Boston-New 
York 1981-82, p. 23n6, note that the dimensions 
and the location of the signatures differ 

O (back to entry) 

Dirck de Bray 

(ca. 1635-1694) 

Flowers in a Glass Vase, 1671 
Oil on wood, 19 14 x 14% in. 

(48.9 x 36.5 cm) 

Signed and dated lower left: 1671D. D. 

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter 


Anonymous (sale, London, Sotheby’s, 

25 Feb. 1948, lot 92, as dated 1673, ill.; 
sold for £2,100 to); P. T. Kroyer. 1 Anony¬ 
mous (sale, London, Christie’s, 9 Apr. 
1954? lot 2, as dated 1673; bought in and 

later sold to); 2 [C. Duits, London, no. 383, 
owned with Hallsborough Gallery, 
London, sold 1954 to]; Sidney James van 
den Bergh (1898-1977), 3 Wassenaar, sold 
1973 through; [G. Cramer, The Hague, 
to]; Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter, 
Los Angeles, given 2009 to; LACMA. 


Laren 1959, no. 31, fig. 18; 4 Leiden 1965, 
no. 6; San Francisco-Toledo-Boston 
1966-67, no. 102, ill.; on loan, The 
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 
16 Apr-15 Aug. 1973; Los Angeles- 
Boston-New York 1981-82, no. 6, pp. 
24-27, ill.; The Hague-San Francisco 
1990-91, no. 102, pp. 186-90, ill.; Los 
Angeles 1992-93, no. 6, pp. 24-27, ill.; 
Amsterdam-Cleveland 1999-2000 
(Cleveland only), no. 69, pp. 263-65, ill.; 
Haarlem-London 2008, no. 45, pp. 120, 
151, ill. 121. 


Bernt 1960-62, vol. 4 (1962), no. 38, ill.; 

A. B. de Vries 1964, pp. 354~55? ph II; 

A. B. de Vries et al. 1968, no. 30, ill.; Bol 
1969? P- 334 ? fig- 302; Bernt 1969-70, 
vol. 1 (1969), no. 178, ill.; Mitchell 1973, 
p. 61, as in the Van den Bergh collection; 
Bernt 1979-80, vol. 1 (1979), no. 192, ill.; 
Rickey 1981, p. 26, ill.; The Hague 1992, 
p. 68, ill. 


1 According to the printed record of the results of 
the sale. The name is variously recorded: the entry 
in the sale catalogue itself is annotated “2100 
Kruyer.” An unidentified article about the results 
of the sale attached to a copy of the sale catalogue 
at the Getty Research Institute presumably 
misspelled the name of the buyer as “Krager.” 
Haarlem-London 2008, no. 45, p. 151, identifies the 
buyer as R E. Kruyer. 

2 According to an annotated photo mount from 
Douwes now at the Getty Research Institute. 

3 Sidney James van den Bergh was a major collector 
of seventeenth-century Dutch paintings. He was a 
senior manager of Unilever and served as minister 
of defense for the Netherlands in 1959. A. B. de 
Vries 1964 and A. B. de Vries et. al. 1968. 

4 The catalogue notes that the lenders to the 
exhibition wished to remain anonymous. An 
annotation to the title page of a copy of the 
catalogue at the RKD-Nederlands Instituut voor 
Kunstgeschiedinis, The Hague, however, 
identifies S. J. van den Bergh, Wassenaar, as one of 
the lenders to the exhibition. 


^ (back to entry) 

Jan van de Cappelle 


Ships in a Calm, early 1650s 
Oil on canvas, 31 x 43 in. 

(78.7 x109.2 cm) 

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward W. Carter 


Messrs. Murrieta (sale, London, 
Christie’s, 14 May 1892, lot 126, sold to); 
[P. & D. Colnaghi, London]. R. D. Walker, 
London (sale, London, Christie’s, 1 July 
1907, lot 147, as “Dutch School,” sold to); 
[A. Buttery, London]. Ernest James 
Wythes (d. 1949), 1 Copped Hall, Essex, 
by inheritance to his daughter; Barbara 
Dorothy Wythes (b. 1896, m. 1920 to 
Francis Guy Robert Elwes), by inheri¬ 
tance to her son; Major Robert Valentine 
Gervase Elwes (1922-1959), Oxfordshire, 
by inheritance to his father; 2 Col. 
Francis Guy Robert Elwes (1895-1966), 
O.B.E. (estate sale, London, Sotheby’s, 
26 Mar. 1969, lot 26, sold to); [David 
Koetser, Zurich, sold 1971 to]; Mr. 
and Mrs. Edward William Carter, 

Los Angeles, given 2003 to; LACMA. 


Los Angeles-New York-Boston 1981-82, 
no. 7, pp. 29-31, ill.; Los Angeles 
1992-93, no. 7, pp. 29-31, ill.; on loan, 

28 Oct.-9 Dec. 1996. 


Graves 1918-21, vol. 3 (1970), p. 263; HdG 
1908-27, vol. 7 (1923), no. 123; Russell 
1975, no. 123, p. 78, fig. 86; J. Walsh 1981, 
p. 384; Minneapolis-Toledo-Los Angeles 
1990-91, p. 106; “The Gift of Mr. and 
Mrs. Carter” 2003, p. 21. 


1 According to the dealer David Carritt, London 
(letter to Edward Carter, 14 Feb. 1973), “While still 
a student Wythes inherited a huge fortune from 
his father, a railway builder. One of his first acts 
was to build a vast yacht on which to take his 
fellow-undergraduates to Italy and other centers 
of culture— Wythes didn’t exactly collect. He 
bought all the things that retired gentlemen of 
his time bought, including a Botticelli and a fake 
Jan van Eyck, but his best picture was probably 
the one in your lab [the Van de Cappelle].” 

2 Major Robert V. G. Elwes died without children. 

(back to entry) 

Pieter Claesz. 


Still Life with Herring, Wine, and Bread, 


Oil on wood, 1 7% x 23 14 in. 

(44.8x58.7 cm) 

Signed and dated at right: PC/164/ 

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter 


Private collection, the Netherlands. 
Anonymous (sale, Cologne, Lempertz, 

1 June 1978, lot 37, ill.). [J. Hoogsteder, 
The Hague, sold 1980 to]; Mr. and Mrs. 
Edward William Carter, Los Angeles, 
given 2009 to; LACMA. 


Los Angeles-Boston-New York 1981-82, 
no. 8, pp. 32-35, ill.; Los Angeles 
1992-93, no. 8, pp. 32-35? HI. 


Vroom 1980-99, vol. 1 (1980), p. 47, 
fig- 55? vol. 2 (1980), p. 34? no. 141; 

J. Walsh 1981, pp. 387, pi. XII; Los 
Angeles 1990-91? PP- 153 ~ 54 ? fig- 39 a; 
Brunner-Bulst 2004, no. 159, p. 294; 
Amsterdam 2007, p. io4n4, no. 46; 
Moscow 2009, p. 81. 

9 (back to entry) 

Adriaen Coorte 

(act. 1683-1707) 

Still Life with Strawberries in a Wan-Li 
Bowl, 1704 

Oil on paper mounted on wood, 
liYs x 8 7 /s in. (29.5 x 22.5 cm) 

Signed and dated lower left, on edge of 
stone table: A Coorte /1704 

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter 


[Goudstikker, Amsterdam, 1933]. Anony¬ 
mous (sale, London, Christie’s, 28 June 
1974, lot 76, sold for 12,500 guineas to); 
[Newhouse Gallery, New York, sold 1974 
to]; Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter, 
Los Angeles, given 2009 to; LACMA. 


Amsterdam 1933, no. 68; Los Angeles- 
Boston-New York 1981-82, no. 9, pp. 
36-39, ill.; Los Angeles 1992-93, no. 9, 
PP- 36 - 39 ? ill- 


Vorenkamp 1933, p. 72; Van Gelder in 
Oxford 1950, p. 69; Bol 1952-53? no. 38, 
pp. 199,202,220, fig. 10, as with 
Goudstikker as of 1933; WCA, vol. 16 
(1974), p. 80; Bol 1977, no. A57, pp. 8, 
I5n27,22,42,36, fig. 31; Mandle 1979, 
p. 326; Bol 1980, pp. 135? I37ni2, fig. 11; 
Shore 1980, vol. 2, no. 166, ill.; Bol 1982, 
p. 11, fig. 11; WCA, vol. 37 (1985-87), p. 85; 
Korteweg and Vels Heijn 1992, pp. 63, 
180, ill.; Slive 1995, p. 319; Baltimore 
1999? p. 36n6; Meijer 1999, p. 93; Dibbits 
2004, p. i64n2o; The Hague 2008, no. 53, 
p. 112, ill. 

IO (back to entry) 

Aelbert Cuyp 


The Flight into Egypt, mid- to late 1650s 
Oil on wood, z6 s /s x 35 Vz in. 

(67.6 x 90.2 cm) 

Signed lower left: A. Cuyp 

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter 


Servad, Amsterdam (sale, Amsterdam, 
Cornells Ploos van Amstel, Hendrik de 
Winter, and Jan Yver, 25 June 1778, lot 
48, sold [or bought in?] for 560 florins 
to); [Jan Yver, Amsterdam]. 1 Stanislaus II 
Augustus Poniatowski (1732-1798), 
Warsaw and Saint Petersburg (r. as king 
of Poland 1764-95). 2 Prince Charles 
Maurice de Talleyrand-Perigord 
(1754-1838), Paris (sale, Paris, M. Henry, 
7 July 1817, lot 10, as formerly “Roi de 
Pologne,” sold en bloc before the sale 
to); [William Buchanan (1777-1864), 
London]. [John Webb, London, valued 
at 1,050 guineas]. 3 [William Buchanan, 
London, sold for 1,100 guineas to]; 4 
Alexander Baring (1774-1848), later 1st 
Baron Ashburton, London and the 
Grange, Northington, Hampshire, by 
1819, by descent to; Francis Denzil 
Edward Baring (1866-1938), 5th Baron 
Ashburton, the Grange, Northington, 
Hampshire, sold 1907 en bloc to; 


[syndicate of Thomas Agnew & Sons, 
London; Arthur J. Sulley & Co., London; 
and Asher Wertheimer, London, 
probably sold to]; Alfred de Rothschild 
(1842-1918), Hal ton Manor, by inheri¬ 
tance to; Rothschild heirs, sold in 1924 
to; [Arthur Ruck, London, and M. 
Knoedler, London and New York, sold 
1925 to]; Charles T. Fisher (1880-1963), 
Detroit, 5 by inheritance to his son; 
Thomas K. Fisher (1920-1988), Detroit 
(sale, London, Christie’s, 28 June 1974, 
lot 79, ill., bought in, sold 1977 
through); [Richard L. Feigen, New York, 
to]; Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter, 
Los Angeles, given 1996 to; LACMA. 


London 1819, no. 105, lent by Alexander 
Baring; New York 1925, no. 2, ill.; 

Detroit 1926, no. 24, ill.; Detroit 1927, 
no. 31; Detroit 1929, p. viii, no. 16, ill.; 
Detroit 1939, no. 10; New York 1939, 
no. 66, p. 32, pi. 77; Detroit 1949, no. 6, 
pi. 7; Los Angeles-Boston-New York 
1981-82, no. 10, pp. 40-45, ill.; Los 
Angeles 1992-93, no. 10, pp. 40-45, ill-; 
2001-2, no. 41, pp. 176-77,207-8, ill. 


Buchanan 1824, vol. 2, no. 10, pp. 321-22; 
Smith 1829-42, vol. 5 (1834), no. 132, 
pp. 320-21; 6 Waagen 1838, vol. 2, p. 283; 
Waagen 1854, vol. 2, no. 2, p. 110; HdG 
1908-27, vol. 2 (1909), no. 409, p. 123; 
Holmes 1930, no. 27, pp. 167,185, fig. 4; 
Frankfurter 1939, no. 68, fig. 105; 

J. Walsh 1974a, p. 349023; J. Walsh 1981, 
p. 386, fig. 10; Montreal 1990, p. 87, fig. 
39; Chong 1993, no. 168, pp. 422-23; “The 
Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Carter” 2003, p. 21; 
Liedtke 2007, vol. 1, pp. 140,142003-4. 


1 Since Jan Yver was one of the dealers involved in 
the sale, he may have been acting as an agent for 
Poniatowski or another buyer. 

2 For Stanislaus Augustus Poniatowski, see London 
1992, p. 36: “After the King’s death his collections 
were gradually dispersed. On departure from 
Poland in 1795 he had taken 100 of his favourite 
paintings to St. Petersburg: some he had given 
away, others were sold on his death to pay debts. 
The sale of his collections continued in the 
following years until 1821.” 

3 HdG 1907-28, vol. 2 (1909), no. 409, cites 
Buchanan as the buyer from the Talleyrand sale, 
followed by John Webb. He also cites Buchanan as 
the seller to Baring. If the latter is true, Buchanan 
may have been working with Webb, who was a 
dealer. Webb also purchased from Buchanan 
Gabriel Metsu’s A Woman Seated at a Table and a Man 
Tuning a Violin (The National Gallery, London, inv. 
no. NG 838), formerly in the Talleyrand collection. 

4 An annotation to the entry for the painting in 
a copy of the 1817 Talleyrand-Perigord sale 
catalogue at the State Hermitage Museum, Saint 
Petersburg, notes, “retenu a 20000 estime 12000 
vendu par M. Buchanan a Alx. Baring, 1100 guin.” 
Getty Provenance Index, Sale Catalogs Database. 

5 In 1908 Charles Thomas Fisher and his six 
brothers founded Fisher Body Company in 
Detroit, an automotive coach builder for which he 
served as president. The company is now an 
operating division of General Motors. 

6 The description by Smith is confused but can be 
identified with the painting sold by Talleyrand: 

“A Landscape, with a high road, bounded on the 
left by a chain of lofty rocks, and skirted on the 
opposite side by some high trees. An old man 
leading an ass, on which is a young woman with a 
child in her arms, is on the road; a little beyond 
them are a farmer on a piebald horse, and a 
herdsman driving four cows; and still farther are 
a man and a woman with a flock of sheep. The 
opposite side is composed of a river, bounded by 
high hills, some of which are adorned with 
buildings. The glowing warmth of a brilliant 
sunset pervades the scene. This is a studied and 
highly finished production. 2 ft. 2 in. by 2 ft. 11 
in.—P. Formerly in the cabinet of the King of 
Poland. Collection of M. Servad, Amst. 1778 ... 
Prince Talleyrand, 1817; bought by John Webb, 
Esq.... Now in the collection of Alexander 
Baring, Esq.” 

11 (back to entry) 

Jan van Goyen 


View of Dordrecht, 1645 
Oil on wood, 25% x 38 in. 

(65.7x96.5 cm) 

Signed and dated lower center, on the 
rowboat: VGOYEN1645 

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter 


Lord St. Leonards, Boyle Farm, Thames 
Ditton, Surrey (probably estate sale, 
Thames Ditton, E. & H. Lumley, 1 Nov. 
1886, lot 1018, as “Outward Port of 
Rotterdam, 37^ x 25 Yz”; sold for £180 
to); 1 [Martin Colnaghi (1821-1908), 
London]. 2 S. E. Kennedy, Esq. (sale, 
London, Christie’s, 6 July 1917, lot 13, 
as “from the Collection of Lord St. 

Leonards,” sold for £1,400 to); [Thos. 
Agnew & Sons, London, stock no. 4966, 
sold July 1919 to]; [F. Muller & Co., 
Amsterdam]; H. E. Smidt van Gelder, 
Aerdenhout (near Haarlem), by 1919, 
sold 1979 through; [G. Cramer, The 
Hague, to]; Mr. and Mrs. Edward 
William Carter, Los Angeles, given 2009 
to; LACMA. 


Los Angeles-Boston-New York 1981-82, 
no. 11, pp. 46-49, ill.; Los Angeles 
1992-93, no. 11, pp. 46-49, ill- 


HdG 1908-27, vol. 8 (1927), no. 95; 3 H.-U. 
Beck 1972-87, vol. 2 (1973), no. 300, ill.; 

J. Walsh 1981, p. 385, fig. 8; Falkenburg 
1997 , P- 63, fig. 52. 


1 This is the only painting by Van Goyen known to 
have been in St. Leonards’s sale. The reference to 
Lord St. Leonards comes from the Kennedy sale 
catalogue. HdG 1908-27, vol. 8 (1927), no. 95, 
incorrectly identifies the St. Leonards and 
Kennedy painting as a similar View of Dordrecht by 
Van Goyen that was later in the collection of 
Charles Butler. That painting is, however, H.-U. 
Beck 1972-87, vol. 2 (1973), no. 310 (Toledo 
Museum of Art, Ohio, inv. no. 1933.27). 

2 According to the annotation “M. Col” in the copy 
of the St. Leonards’s sale catalogue at the Getty 
Research Institute. 

3 Incorrectly confuses the provenance of the 
painting with that currently in Toledo. See n. 1 

12 (back to entry) 

Jan van Goyen 


View of Arnhem, 1646 
Oil on wood, 17M6 x 21 14 in. 

( 43-7 X 54 cm) 

Signed and dated lower right edge: 
VGOYEN 16(46] 

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter 


[Probably H. O. Miethke, Vienna, sold 
1896 to]; 1 Cornelis Hoogendijk (1866- 
1911), 2 The Hague, by 1899 (sale, 
Amsterdam, F. Muller & Co., 14 May 


1912, lot 23, ill., sold for 10,000 florins 
to); Piek, The Hague. Anonymous (sale, 
Amsterdam, F. Muller & Co., 20 June 
1916, lot 192, sold for 10,400 florins to); 3 
[F. Muller & Co.]. Michiel Onnes (1878- 
1972), Kasteel Nijenrode, Breukelen. 4 
[J. Goudstikker, Amsterdam, by 1920]. 
Miss A. Goekoop, 5 Wassenaar, sold to; 
[Nystad, The Hague, sold 1982 to]; 

Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter, 

Los Angeles, given 2009 to; LACMA. 


The Hague 1899, no. 17, p. 5; The Hague 
1920, no. 43, ill.; Los Angeles 1992-93, 
no. 30, pp. 120-23, ill. 


HdG 1908-27, vol. 8 (1927), no. 9, pp. 
14-15; H.-U. Beck 1972-87, vol. 2 (1973), 
no. 280, ill.; Sutton 1990-91, p. 109, 

%• 4 - 


1 This painting was probably part of a collection of 
old master paintings Miethke sold en bloc in 
October 1896 to Hoogendijk for 60,000 florins. 
Heijbroek and Wouthuysen 1999, p. 269. 

2 For Hoogendijk, see Heijbroek and Wouthuysen 
1999 * PP- 269-70. Cornelis Hoogendijk came from 
a Reformed Calvinist family in Krimpen aan den 
IJssel. Before completing his doctoral exams for a 
law degree from the University of Leiden, 
Hoogendijk enrolled at the Rijksacademie van 
Beeldende Kunsten in Amsterdam, where he 
studied painting for one to two years. Between 
1889 and 1900 he put together an unusually large 
collection of paintings, drawings, and prints of 
old and modern masters. A large part of the 
collection, including this painting, was exhibited 
at Pulchri Studio in The Hague in 1899. In 1900 
Hoogendijk was committed to a psychiatric 
hospital in Ermelo, where he died in 1911. From 
1906 until 1912, when it was sold through R 
Muller & Co., part of the collection was on loan to 
the Rijksmuseum. This painting does not, 
however, match any of the four paintings by Van 
Goyen recorded by the Rijksmuseum as on loan 
from the collection. I am grateful to Pieter Roelofs, 
curator of seventeenth-century Dutch painting at 
the Rijksmuseum, for checking the archives of 
the museum. 

3 The specific seller of the painting is not identified. 
The catalogue lists as sellers: M. Dr. W. A. 

Royaards, conseiller de legation de S. M. la Reine 
des Pays-Bas a Sofia; Mme Vve. S. Paleologo, 
Amsterdam; Mme Vve. W. J. Bosch Verhagen, 
Utrecht; Mme Vve. G. C. J. van Reenen van 
Lexmond, Loenen; M. A. Groutars, Maastricht; 
and M. Mr. A. C. A. Jacobse Boudewijnse, 
Middelburg. The painting may have been bought 
in since Muller was also the auctioneer. 

4 According to H.-U. Beck 1972-87, vol. 2 (1973), 

no. 280, p. 135. Michiel Onnes, an Amsterdam coffee 
merchant of German descent, acquired Nijenrode 
Castle in 1907 and restored and expanded it in 
1920. In 1930 he sold it to the art dealer Jacques 
Goudstikker. The painting was not included in 
the 10 July 1923 sale of the Onnes collection by 
Ant. W. M. Mensing (F. Muller & Co.), Amsterdam. 

5 Possibly related to Adriaan Goekoop (1859-1914) 
and his wife, Johanne Goekoop de Jongh 
(1877-1946), the first Dutch woman to earn a 
doctorate in art history. The couple, who married 
in 1905, lived outside The Hague at Sorgvliet, 
the former home of Jacob Cats. See cat. no. 2ini4. 
See also cat. no. 21. 

13 (back to entry) 

Willem Claesz. Heda 


Still Life with Tobacco, Beer; and Wine , 


Oil on wood, 1 6 5 /s x 21% in. 

(42.2 x 54.3 cm) 

Signed and dated left of center, on edge 

of table: HEDA /1637 

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward W. Carter 



[Jean Lenthal, Paris]. [P. de Boer, 
Amsterdam, in 1949 until at least 1951]. 

J. M. Redele, Dordrecht, by 1952, sold 
1978 through; [G. Cramer, The Hague, 
to]; Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter, 
Los Angeles, given 2003 to; LACMA. 


Rotterdam 1951, no. 20; Paris 1952, no. 37, 
pi. XVII, lent by J. M. Redele; Rome 1954, 
no. 51; Milan 1954, no. 58; Dordrecht 
1954, no. 52; Rotterdam 1955, no. 73, 
p. 39, pi. 50; Eindhoven 1957-58, no. 28; 
Luxembourg-Liege 1957, no. 29, pp. 
24-25, pi. 17; Paris i960, no. 24; San 
Francisco-Toledo-Boston 1966-67, 
no. 101, p. 148, ill.; Los Angeles-Boston- 
New York 1981-82, no. 12, pp. 50-53, ill.; 
Los Angeles 1992-93, no. 12, pp. 50-53, ill. 


Leymarie 1956, fig. 173; Boucaud 1958, 
p. 229; Sterling 1959, p. 52; “The Gift of 
Mr. and Mrs. Carter” 2003, p. 21. 

14 (back to entry) 

Jan van der Heyden 


The Herengracht, Amsterdam, Viewed 
from theLeliegracht, ca. 1666-70 
Oil on wood, 13 14 x 15% in. 

Signed at the right, on the quay: VH 

Partial gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter 
and purchased with funds provided by The 
Ahmanson Foundation, the Mr. and Mrs. Allan C. 
Balch Collection by exchange, and Hannah L. Carter 


The artist and his wife, Sara ter Hiel (d. 
1712): “een gesichje van de Bocht van de 
Oude Heeregracht,” mentioned in the 
inventory attached to the 5 Dec. 1692 
will of Jan van der Heyden and Sara ter 
Hiel, living on the Koestraat, 
Amsterdam, and as “de bogt van de 
Heeregragt met de Warmoessluys int 
Verschiet,” valued at 50 florins, in the 
inventory of the estate of Sara ter Hiel, 
Amsterdam, 18 May 1712, by bequest to 
her son; 1 Samuel van der Heyden (d. 
1729), Amsterdam, by bequest 1729 to 
his sister; Sara van der Heyden (d. 1738), 
Amsterdam. 2 Jacob Crammer Simonsz., 
Amsterdam (estate sale, Amsterdam, 

Van der Schley, Yver, and Schelte, 25 Nov. 
1778, lot 10, as “op panel hoog 13 Vz, 
breed 15 Vz duim. Een Gezigt binnen 
Amsterdam, verbeeldende de 
Heeregragt, van de Lelysluys af te zien, 
naar de Warmoe gragt, de Son Ligten 
zyn 'er Geestig in waargenoomen, en de 
Beeldjes en Vaartuygen; gestoffeert, 
door A van den Velde, Dit Stuk is zeer 
bevallig en plaisant geschilderd”). Louis 
Cesar de la Baume Le Blanc, due de la 
Valliere (1708-1780), Paris (sale, Paris, A. 
Paillet, 21-23 Feb. 1781, lot 67, as “La vue 
d’un Canal de Hollande, borde de 
maisons & plante d’arbres; plusieurs 
barques chargees de marchandises, sont 
arretees pres du trottoir, ou sont 
distributes diverses figures. La variete 
dans la construction des maisons, la ton 
de couleur & les moindres details, sont 
rendus avec la plus grande finesse & une 
exacte verite. La reflexion des objets 
dans feau, contribue a une harmonie 
parfaite, & sont annoncer ce Tableau 
comme un des plus finis de cet habile 


Peintre. Haut. 13 pouc. 6 lig. larg. 16 
pouc. 6 lig. B.,” sold [bought in?] to); 

[A. J. Paillet, Paris]. M. B. de B[oynes], 
Paris (sale, Paris, 15-10 Mar. 1785, lot 42, 
as “Ce Tableau, Tun des plus fins de ce 
maitre, represente le cote interieur d’un 
canal des villes de la Hollande, sur 
lequel on voit des barques & des cignes; 
au-dela du mur du quai de ce canal 
s’elevent de grands arbres a travers les 
percees desquels on decouvre de beaux 
batimens de brique, & decores des 
ornemens qui appartiennent a FArchi- 
tecture, rendus avec tout Pinteret & Part 
que Pon admire dans les productions de 
ce maitre; le ciel est parfaitement bien 
rendu, ainsi que les figures que Pon voit 
aux differens endroits de ce tableau. 
Hauteur 16 pouces, largeur 13 pouces. B. 
Il vient de la vente de M. le Due de la 
Valliere, n°. [67-1900]”). 3 Chevallier 
F[erdinando] Meazza (1837-1913), Milan 
(sale, Milan, Riblet, 15-19 Apr. 1884, lot 
186, ill.). [Antoine Baer, sold Feb. 1885 
to]; 4 Albert Lehmann, Paris (sale, Galerie 
Georges Petit, Paris, 12-13 June 1925, lot 
255, ill., sold for 112,500 francs to); M. 
Guiraud. 5 Esmond, Paris. 6 [Otto 
Wertheimer (1896-1973), Paris, in 1945, 
sold by 1950 to]; 7 [Duits, London, sold 
by 1953 for 85,000 guilders to]; Sidney 
James van den Bergh (1898-1977), 
Wassenaar, sold 1971 through; 8 [G. 
Cramer, The Hague, to]; Mr. and Mrs. 
Edward William Carter, Los Angeles, 
partial gift and partial sale by the heirs 
2009 to; LACMA. 


Amsterdam 1906, no. 62, lent by Albert 
Lehmann, Paris; Birmingham 1950, 
no. 25, lent by Duits; Paris 1950-51, no. 36, 
pi. 26; Zurich 1953, no. 53; Rome 1954. 
no. 54; Milan 1954, no. 62, pi. 65; New 
York-Toledo-Toronto 1954-55, no. 38, 
ill.; Rotterdam 1955, no. 75, pi. 145, lent 
by Sidney James van den Bergh; 9 Tel 
Aviv 1959, no. 51; Laren 1959, no. 53, 
pi. 27; Leiden 1965, no. 24; Los Angeles- 
Boston-New York 1981-82, no. 13, pp. 
54-57, ill.; Los Angeles 1992-93, no. 13, 
PP- 54 - 57 , ill.; Greenwich-Amsterdam 
2006-7, no. 17, pp. 47,70, ill. 


Probably Bredius 1912, pp. 132,135; HdG 
1908-27, vol. 8 (1927), no. 22, p. 337; 
Bruyn 1950; A. B. de Vries 1964, p. 357, 

ill.; J. Rosenberg, Slive, and Ter Kuile 
1966, p. 193, pi. 164B, 1972 ed., p. 332, 
fig. 263; A. B. de Vries et al. 1968, p. 69, ill.; 
Wagner 1971, no. 11, p. 69; Haverkamp- 
Begemann 1973, p. 401; Slive 1995, p. 275, 
fig- 375 ; Briels 1997, PP- Hh 336 , pi. 211; 

A. Walsh 2007, p. 111, pi. 3; Marandel and 
Walsh et al. 2019, no. 7, pp. 38-39, ill. 


1 Bredius 1912, pp. 132 and 135, respectively. For a 
further discussion of the distribution of the 
possessions of Jan van der Heyden and Sara ter 
Hiel, see I. H. Van Eeghen 1973. According to the 
1692 will, the painting was to be given to their 
daughter Sara van der Heyden. In 1712, however, 
the painting was given to their son Samuel. 

2 HdG 1908-27, vol. 8 (1927), no. 22, p. 337, cited as 
previous provenance of the Carter painting, “Een 
Gezicht langs de Heeregragt. Zeer uitvoerig op 
Paneel geschilderd, en door A. van de Velde 
gestoffeerd. Hoog 15 14 , breed 16 duim” 
(anonymous sale, Amsterdam, van der Linden 
and de Winter, 5 June 1765, lot 27, sold for 175-0 
florins, to Hoogenhuysen for Loquet). That 
painting is probably identical with lot 134 in the 
sale 22 September 1783 of paintings owned by 
Pieter Locquet by Van der Schley, De Bosch, Ploos 
van Amstel, De Winter, and Yver. The Locquet 
painting is described in similar terms as that in 
the 1765 sale: “15 14 x 15 14 duim, panel. In dit 
natuurlyk stuk vertoond zich een Gezicht langs 
de Heer-Gragt te Amsterdam ziende gedeeltelyk 
naar de Lely-Gragt, gestoffeert met verscheide 
Wooningen, Geboomte, en diversche Beeldjes, dit 
stuk is niet min bevallig dan Konstig geschildert, 
en het streelende zonligt; doed een zeer schooner 
uitwerking,” sold for 405 florins to Nyman. 
Because the view is described as toward the 
Lely-Gragt, it cannot be the Carter painting, 
which is described as looking/ram the Leliegracht. 

3 The number and price are handwritten. The sale 
was said to be from the cabinet of M. B. de B.*** 
Various copies of the catalogue are annotated 

4 According to an annotated catalogue of the 1925 
Lehmann sale. Advertisements in La chronique des 
arts et de la curiosite in 1880 identify Antoine Baer as 
an expert of tableaux ancienesetmodernes located at 
2 rue Lafhtte. 

5 According to an annotated copy of the catalogue 
at the Getty Research Institute. Probably a 
reference to S. Guiraud, Paris. According to Los 
Angeles-Boston-New York 1981-82, citing 
information from a photo mount at the Witt 
Library, The Courtauld Institute of Art, London, 
Alfred de Rothschild owned the painting between 
Lehmann and Beurnonville. This cannot be 
correct, however, since Baron Alfred Charles de 
Rothschild (1842-1918), London and Halton, 
Hertfordshire, died in 1918. The reference is 
probably to Houses on the Herengracht that is still in 
the Rothschild collection at Waddesdon Manor. 
Baron de Beurnonville, who seems to have owned 
a major collection of Dutch and Flemish 
paintings, had a number of sales in Paris during 
the 1880s. 

6 According to Wagner 1971. 

7 According to A. B. de Vries (orally. The Hague, 
1978, note in file), Lehmann sold the painting to 
Wertheimer in Paris, who sold it to Duits, who 
sold it to Van den Bergh for “85,000.” If 
Wertheimer did acquire the painting in 1925 from 
the Lehmann sale, it is unclear where it was 
during the early 1940s. Otto Wertheimer 
(1879-1972) was born in Buehl Baden, Germany, 
and died in Paris. He held a position in the 
department of the history of art at the University 
of Berlin until 1933, when as a Jew he lost his job 
and moved to Paris. Wertheimer’s parents were 
deported to concentration camps. Although his 
father and sisters died during the war, Otto 
Wertheimer, who spent part of World War II in 
the Vichy government zone and part in 
Switzerland, was able to obtain his mother’s 
release from a concentration camp, probably 
through the payment of a bribe. 

8 Sidney J. van den Bergh, a major collector of 
seventeenth-century Dutch paintings, was a 
senior manager of Unilever and Dutch minister 
of defense in 1959. See A. B. de Vries 1964, Leiden 
1965, and A. B. de Vries et al. 1968, and 
introduction to the present volume. Van den 
Bergh sold a number of paintings to the Carters 
through G. Cramer, The Hague. Sales of his 
collection also took place in Amsterdam in 1975 
and London in 1979. 

9 The catalogue notes that the lenders to the 
exhibition wished to remain anonymous. An 
annotation to the title page of a copy of the 
catalogue at the RKD-Nederlands Instituut voor 
Kunstgeschiedinis, The Hague, however, 
identifies the lenders as S. J. van den Bergh, 
Wassenaar, and Dr. H. A. Wetzlar, Amsterdam. 

15 , 1 6 (back to entries) 

Meindert Hobbema 


Landscape with Anglers and a Distant 

Town , ca. 1664-65 

Oil on wood, 9% x 12 Vz in. 

(23.8x31.8 cm) 

Signed lower left: m. hobbema 

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter 


Meindert Hobbema 


Landscape with a Footbridge, 

ca. 1664-65 

Oil on wood, 9% x 12 Vi in. 

(23.8x31.8 cm) 

Signed right, on bridge: m. hobbema 

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter 



Anna Maria Ebeling (1767-1812), by 
inheritance to her husband; Paul Iwan 
Hogguer (1760-1816), 1 Amsterdam (sale, 


Amsterdam, P. van der Schley, 18 Aug. 
1817, lots 23,22, sold for 621 and 834 
florins to); J. Hulswit. 2 Sir Charles Bagot 
(1781-1843), London (sale, London, 
Christie's, 18 June 1836, lots 51,52, sold 
for £157.10 to); [Seguier for]; 3 Henry 
Petty-Fitzmaurice (1780-1863), 3rd 
Marquess of Lansdowne, Bowood 
House, Wiltshire, by inheritance to; 
Henry Petty-Fitzmaurice (1816-1866), 
4th Marquess of Lansdowne, Bowood 
House, Wiltshire; by inheritance to; 
Henry Charles Keith Petty-Fitzmaurice 
(1845-1927), 5th Marquess of Lans¬ 
downe, Bowood House, Wiltshire, until 
at least 1876. 4 [Thos Agnew and Sons, 
London, sold to]; [Charles Sedelmeyer, 
Paris]. Rodolphe Kann (1845-1905), 5 
Paris, by 1883, sold 1907 as part of the 
Kann collection to; [Duveen Brothers, 
Paris and London]; Walter von Pannwitz 
(1856-1920), Berlin and De Hartekamp, 
Heemstede, the Netherlands, by 
inheritance to his second wife; 6 Catalina 
von Pannwitz (1876-1959), De Harte¬ 
kamp, Heemstede, the Netherlands, 
sold separately 1962 to: 

Landscape with Anglers and a Distant Town 
Sidney James van den Bergh (1898- 
1977), Wassenaar, sold 1973 through; [G. 
Cramer, The Hague, to]; Mr. and Mrs. 
Edward William Carter, Los Angeles, 
given 2003 to; LACMA. 

Landscape with a Footbridge 
[Rosenberg and Stiebel, New York, sold 
1962 to]; Mr. and Mrs. Edward William 
Carter, Los Angeles, given 2003 to; 


London 1876, no. 204; 7 Dordrecht 1963, 
no. 45, fig. 112 (Landscape with Anglers, 
lent by Mr. and Mrs. Sidney J. van den 
Bergh); Leiden 1965, no. 25 (Landscape 
with Anglers); Los Angeles-Boston-New 
York 1981-82, nos. 14A, B, pp. 59-61, ill.; 
Los Angeles 1992-93, nos. 14A, B, pp. 
59-61, ill. 

Additional exhibition for Landscape with 
a Footbridge: Rotterdam 1939-40, no. 31, 
pi. 26. 


Smith 1829-42, vol. 6 (1835), nos. 45,46, 
p. 127, vol. 9 (Supplement, 1842), p. 723, 
nos. 13,14; Jameson 1844, nos. 71,72, pp. 
315-16; Waagen 1854, vol. 3, p. 161, nos. 2, 
3; Sedelmeyer 1898, nos. 61,62; Bode 
1907, p. 150; Kann 1907, vol. 1, nos. 47,48; 
Bode 1909, pp. 173-74; HdG 1908-27, 
vol. 4 (1912), no. 176, p. 414, no. 245, p. 432; 
Friedlander and Von Falke 1925-26, 
vol. 1, p. x, and nos. 62,63; Broulhiet 1938, 
nos. 87,200, pp. 145,202, ills. 

Additional reference for Landscape with 
Anglers and a Distant Town: A. B. de Vries 
et al. 1968, p. 70, ill. 


1 According to the Getty Provenance Index, Sales 
Catalogs Database, although sold under Paul 
Hogguer’s name, the collection of paintings, 
drawings, prints, sculpture, coins, medals, etc., 
was formed by his first wife, Anna Maria Ebeling 
(1767-1812), a student of drawing. Paul Hogguer, 
whose family was originally from Switzerland, 
was a banker and served as the first director of the 
Nederlandsche Bank in Amsterdam, 1814-16. He 
also held various civic positions, including sheriff 
and burgomaster. 

2 According to documentation in the Getty 
Provenance Index, Sales Catalogs Database. 

3 The Getty Provenance Index, Sales Catalogs 
Database notes that the buyer of the paintings at 
the 1836 sale was either Lord Seguier or Lord 
Lansdowne. Smith 1829-42, vol. 9 (Supplement, 
1842), says that the buyer was Seguier, who can 
probably be identified as William Seguier 
(1772-1843), an art dealer and painter. He was the 
first superintendent of the British Institution 
(1805-43), surveyor of the King’s/Queen’s Pictures, 
and first keeper of the National Gallery (1824-43). 

4 Jameson 1844, pp. 315-16, nos. 71,72, and Waagen 
1854, vol. 3, p. 161, nos. 2,3, note that the paintings 
are in the Lansdowne Collection. 

5 Between 1880 and his death in 1905, Rodolphe 
Kann assembled an important collection, which 
he displayed in a gallery that connected his house 
in Paris with the adjoining house of his brother, 
Maurice Kann. Rodolphe Kann was primarily 
interested in collecting paintings by the grand 
Dutch masters, Rembrandt, Frans Hals, and 
Hobbema. Among the prizes in his collection 
were Johannes Vermeer’s Girl Asleep ataTable and 
Rembrandt’s Aristotle, both now in the collection 
of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. 

See A. Walsh 1996, with additional bibliography. 

6 The German aristocrat Walter Sigismund Emil 
Adolf von Pannwitz was the private lawyer to 
Kaiser Wilhelm II. After World War I, when the 
kaiser and his family went into exile in Holland, 
Pannwitz and his second wife, Catalina, whom he 
had married in 1908, followed. Pannwitz sold his 
first collection in Munich in 1905 (Helbing, 24-25 
Oct. 1905). Between 1910 and 1920, with the advice 
of Wilhelm von Bode and Max J. Friedlander, 
Pannwitz assembled a large art collection that 

included Italian, French, German, and Dutch 
paintings from the fifteenth through the 
seventeenth century, as well as bronzes and 
ceramics. Following her husband’s death in 1920, 
Catalina von Pannwitz settled in the Dutch 
country estate De Hartekamp in Heemstede, 
where the collection resided until 1940. Born in 
Rostock, Germany, in 1876, Catalina Carolina 
Friedericke Georgine Roth was from a wealthy 
Jewish family with vast landholdings in 
Argentina, which granted her Argentinean 
citizenship in 1918. In 1940, with the help of F. 
Gutmann, she sold five paintings (not including 
these two) to Hermann Goring. In return. Goring 
arranged for her to receive an exit visa to travel to 
Switzerland and protected her large estate and 
collection, the latter of which was stored during 
the war in a bunker with works from the 
Rijksmuseum. Following the war, Catalina von 
Pannwitz returned to her estate in the 
Netherlands and notified the Netherlands Art 
Property Foundation (Stichting Nederlands 
Kunstbezit), The Hague, in writing that she had 
no interest in the return of the paintings that she 
had sold to the Nazis. Friedlander and Von Falke 
1925-26, and Venema 1986, pp. 290-91,581. 

7 Identified only as Landscape, so it is not known 
which of the paintings was exhibited by the 
Marquess de Landsdowne, who owned both 

17 (back to entry) 

Jan van Huysum 


Bouquet of Flowers in an Urn, 1724 
Oil on mahogany, 31^ x 23 Vi in. 

(80 x59.7 cm) 

Signed and dated lower right, on edge 
of ledge: Jan Van Huysum/fecit 1724 

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter 


Johan Diederik Pompe van 
Meerdervoort (1697-1749), 1 Dordrecht 
and Huis te Meerdervoort, Zwijndrecht, 
or Jan van Huysum, Amsterdam (sale, 
Amsterdam, 14 Oct. 1749, lot 8, “Een 
extra fraye Bloempot, kragtig en 
uitvoerig geschilderd door Jan van 
Huysum, in zyn beste tyd, h. 2 v. 8 d., 
br. 2 v. id.,” sold for 1,245 florins). 2 Gerrit 
Braamcamp (1699-1771), Amsterdam, by 
1766 3 (sale, Amsterdam, Van der Schley, 
31 July 1771, lot 90, as “H. 31, b. 23 Vz d. 
Pnl. Een fraaye Barnsteenen Vaas, 
waarin verschiede Bloemen geplaatst 
zyn, dezelve staat op een' Marmeren 
Tafel, waarop eenige losse bloemen 


liggen tegen eenen lichten agtergrond, 
welke een Landscap verbeeldt. De 
schikking en Groeping der Bloemen is 
volgens de Harmonie der koleuren, en 
de bevallige losheid van dezelve zeer 
natururlyk, en als door een kragtig 
Licht bescheenen, verbeeld; alles op \ 
uitvoerigste behandeld ” sold for 3,800 
florins to); 4 Jan Gildemeester Jansz. 
(1744-1799), 5 Amsterdam (sale, 
Amsterdam, Philippe van der Schley et 
ah, 11-12 June 1800, lot 89, sold for 3,000 
florins [or 3,010?] to); [G. Spaan]. Pieter 
de Smeth (1753-1809), Lord of Alphen 
and Rietveld, Amsterdam (sale, 
Amsterdam, Philippe van der Schley, 1-2 
Aug. 1810, lot 47, sold for 4,500 florins 
to); 6 [Jeronimo de Vries (1776-1853), 
Amsterdam for]; 7 Lucretia Johanna van 
Winter (1785-1845), 8 Amsterdam, after 
her marriage in 1822 to Hendrik Six van 
Hillegom (1790-1847), Six van 
Hillegom-van Winter collection, 
Amsterdam, 9 by inheritance 1847 to 
their sons; Jan Pieter Six van Hillegom 
(1824-1899) and Pieter Hendrik Six van 
Vromade (1827-1905), Amsterdam, by 
inheritance 1905 to Pieter Hendrik Six 
van Vromade’s son; Jonkheer Jan 
Willem Six van Vromade, Amsterdam 
(1872-1936) (sale, Amsterdam, F. Muller, 
and Co., 16 Oct. 1928, supplement J. W. 
Six van Vromade, lot 15a, sold for 25,000 
florins to); [Gallery A. Staal, Amsterdam, 
in 1929]. 10 Arthur Hartog (1891-1985), 
Wassenaar, by 1936, 11 confiscated by the 
Nazis Dec. 1941, sold 1942 by Dr. M. H. 
H. Franssen through Van Marie en 
Bignell, The Hague, for 30,000 florins 
to; 12 Hans Posse (1879-1942) for the 
Fiihrer Museum, Linz; 13 restituted to 
the Netherlands Art Property 
Foundation (Stichting Nederlands 
Kunstbezit, SNK), The Hague, by 1946, 
restituted Mar. 1948 to Arthur Hartog, 
London, later New York, 14 sold to; 
[Gallery S. Nystad, The Hague]. 
[Newhouse Galleries, New York, sold 
1974 to]; Mr. and Mrs. Edward William 
Carter, Los Angeles, given 1991 to; 


Amsterdam 1900, no. 48, p. 14; Amster¬ 
dam 1929, no. 76, ill.; The Hague 1936- 
37, no. 104; The Hague 1946, no. 28, 
property of Arthur Hartog, New York; 
Utrecht 1946, no. 67; Eindhoven 1946, 
no. 88; Paintings Looted from Holland 
1946-48, no. 22; on deposit from Hartog 
to the Mauritshuis, The Hague, 1948; on 
loan, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 
New York, Mar.-June 1974; Los Angeles 
1975, no. 72, pp. 187-88, ill.; Los 
Angeles-New York-Boston 1981-82, no. 
15, pp. 62-66, ill.; Los Angeles 1992-93, 
no. 15, pp. 62-66, ill. 


Hoet 1752 (1976), vol. 2, no. 8, pp. 269, 
503; De Bastide 1766, p. 88, as one of six 
paintings by Van Huysum in Braam- 
camp’s collection, hung in the Salon; 15 
Smith 1829-42, vol. 6 (1835), no. 19, p. 
468, no. 55, p. 476, as collection “de Heer 
Six van Hillegom”; HdG 1908-27, vol. 10 
(1928), no. 43, p. 346, no. 80, p. 355, 
confuses the provenances of two paint¬ 
ings: HdG no. 43 connects Braamcamp 
lot 91 and Gildemeester lot 89, but 
Braamcamp lot 91 includes a bird’s nest 
absent in the Carter painting. HdG no. 
80 correctly identifies the painting as 
Braamcamp lot 90 but incorrectly calls 
it Gildemeester lot 87; Grant 1954, no. 4, 
p. 17, as Arthur Hartog, New York; 16 
Bille 1961, vol. 1, pp. 81,226, fig. 90, vol. 

2, no. 90, pp. 2i-22a, 100; Paviere 
1962-64, vol. 2 (1962), p. 36; De Bruyn 
Kops 1965, pp. 98,143; Naumann 1982, 
pp. 473,475, fig. 10 (reversed); Grimm 
1988, pp. 180-81, figs. 124-25; L. de Vries 
1990, cover; Nijstad 1990, pp. 135-36; 
Slive 1995, p. 320, fig. 422; Washington 
1995 , PP- 144 - 45 , fig-1; Priem 1997, 
pp. 134-36,153 and ni32, no. 13, pp. 201- 
2, ill., clarifies provenance; Spliethoff 
and Hoogsteder 2000, p. 27, ill.; Van der 
Willigen and Meijer 2003, p. 116; 

B. Schwarz 2004, no. XIX/36; Delft- 
Houston 2006-7, no. F15, pp. 193-98 
(catalogue only); Taylor 2008, p. 261; 
Newmeister 2010, p. 166, fig. 171. 


1 Johan Diederik Pompe van Meerdervoort and his 
wife, Johanna Alida (1691-1749), who was his first 
cousin, both died in 1749. Their heirs were their 
three daughters, none of whom married. Liedtke 
2007, vol. 1, pp. 143-44. 

2 The measurements v and d refer to the Dutch voet 
(approximately equivalent to a foot) and duitn 
(approximately equal to an inch). The sale 
catalogue does not distinguish between the two 
collections. Both men died in 1749. Los Angeles- 
New York-Boston 1981-82, p. 66m, concluded 
that the Carter painting probably belonged to Van 
Meerdervoort, since it appears at the beginning of 
the catalogue. Delft-Houston 2006-7, p- 193 , 
disputes the conclusion, noting that the most 
valuable paintings, including the Van Huysums, 
were placed at the beginning of the sale. 
Unfortunately, there is no extant inventory of the 
collection of either man. The abundance of less 
valuable paintings by both Jan and Justus van 
Huysum, as well as drawings and models of 
flowers (lot 125, “Eenige Modellen van 
Bloemstukken, 30-0”) in the second half of the 
catalogue, suggests that the majority of the 
paintings in the first half of the catalogue 
belonged to the Van Meerdervoort collection. 

3 De Bastide 1766, p. 80. Braamcamp may have 
already owned the Carter painting in 1751, when 
Johan van Gool 1750-51 (1971) (vol. 2 [1751], p. 19) 
noted, “Te Amsterdam by den Heer Braamcamp, 
een beroemt liefhebber, zyn vier uitmuntende 
stukken, benevens een schoon Lantschap [by Van 
Huysum]” (In Amsterdam with Heer Braamcamp, 
a famous art lover, are four outstanding pieces 
[still lifes], in addition a beautiful landscape). 

4 Hoet 1752 (1976), vol. 2, p. 503. Bille 1961, vol. 1, 
pp. 81,226, fig. 90, vol. 2, pp. 2i-22a. Vol. 2, no. 90, 
p. 100, gives the English translation of the cata¬ 
logue description: “31 x 23 Vi in. P[anel]. A fine 
amber vase containing various flowers, on a marble 
table on which some loose flowers; a light land¬ 
scape forms the background. The arrangement 
and grouping of the flowers is in accordance with 
the harmony of colours.” 

5 For Gildemeester, see De Bruyn Kops 1965. 

6 The other names listed as brokers of the sale 
included Jan de Bosch, Jan Yver, Cornelis Sebille 
Roos, Jan Wytman, Jeronimo de Vries, and 
Theodorus Franciscus Spaan. For the De Smeth 
van Alphen auction, see Priem 1997, pp. 132-33. 
That collection, which contained mostly 
paintings by seventeenth-century Dutch masters, 
was held in high esteem by contemporaries both 
in the Netherlands and abroad. According to the 
Baltimore collector Robert Gilmor, Jr. (1774-1848), 
who spent time studying in Amsterdam about 
1800, De Smeth owned “the choicest collection of 
works of Wouwermans, Rubens, Ruysdael, Dow, 
Tenier, Berghem, and van de Velde. You can 
scarcely name a greater treat to me than such a 
sight.” Priem 1997, p. I33n66, quoted from H. N. B. 
Clark, “The Impact of Seventeenth-Century 
Dutch and Flemish Genre Painting on American 
Genre Painting, 1800-1865” (PhD diss.. University 
of Delaware, 1982), p. 78. 

7 For Jeronimo de Vries and his role as Lucretia’s 
adviser and agent, see Priem 1997, pp. i3off., who 
suggests the art dealer was probably an old family 


8 Priem 1997. Lucretia was the daughter of Pieter 
van Winter (1745-1807), whom Priem notes, pp. 
103-4, “possessed one of the most important 
private collections ever amassed in the 
Netherlands. Pieter’s collection was divided 
between Lucretia and her younger sister, Anna 
Louisa Agatha (1793-1877).” During the fifteen 
years between her father’s death and her marriage 
in 1822 to Hendrick Six van Hillegom (1790-1847), 
Lucretia added fifty-three paintings to her 
collection, including the Van Huysum. Regarding 
the Six van Hillegom collection, see Van Eijnden 
and Van der Willigen 1816-40, vol. 3 (1820), p. 304. 

9 Listed as in the Hendrik Six van Hillegom 
collection by Smith 1829-42, vol. 6 (1835), no. 55, 
p. 476, although the painting had been acquired 
by Lucretia herself. 

10 Listed as the lender in Amsterdam 1929, no. 76, ill. 

11 Listed as the lender to the exhibition in The 
Hague 1936-37, no. 104. Annotation in an 
unidentified hand (J. G. van Gelder?) in a copy of 
the catalogue at the Getty Research Institute 
notes that Hartog had left the country, but it is 
unclear at what date. See cat. no. 17018. 

12 Maximiliaan Henricus Hubertius Franssen was a 
Dutch lawyer who was appointed by the Nazis in 
1941 to supervise properties seized in the 
Netherlands from those designated as enemies 
of the Nazis. The valuation of the paintings was 
made by J. W. Boer on 9 December 1941. 

13 According to Grant 1954, no. 4, p. 17, before 
Hartog the painting had come “from Art Dealer 
Esther [Esher] Surrey of the Hague, bought by Dr. 
Gopel.” Dr. Erhard Goepel was the official agent 
and buyer for Linz in Holland under Posse and 
Voss. According to the official files of the 
Netherlands Art Property Foundation (Stichting 
Nederlands Kunstbezit, SNK), The Hague, inv. 
no. 148, Hans Posse was responsible for the 
acquisition of the painting for Linz in 1941. Prof. 
Dr. Posse, formerly the director of the 
Gemaldegalerie Alte Meister, Dresden, was 
appointed by Hitler the director of the Special 
Commission for Linz in 1939. From 1939 to 1942 
he was the most important official purchaser of 
works of art for the Nazis. 

14 See cat. no. I7ni8. 

15 De Bastide 1766, p. 88: “six Tableaux de suite 
faisant ensemble un incomparable tresor. Ce sont 
des Fleurs & des Fruits; chaque tableau est un 
chef-d’oeuvre. L’un, de Fleurs, peint sur toile, 
porte 54 pouces de hauteur, sur 43 de largeur. 
Trois, de Fleurs & de Fruits, sur bois, portent 
chacun 31 pouces de hauteur sur 24 de largeur; & 
les deux derniers, egalement en Fruits & en 
Fleurs, & peints sur bois, portent chacun 15 
pouces de hauteur, sur 13 de largeur.” 

16 See n. 13 above. Grant 1954, p. i7n4, following 
HdG 1908-27, confuses the provenance and 
identifies the Carter painting as Braamcamp lot 
91 rather than lot 90 but identifies it correctly as 
Gildemeester lot 89. 


(back to entry) 

Willem Kalf 


Still Life with a Porcelain Vase, Silver- 
gilt Ewer, and Glasses , ca. 1643 
Oil on canvas, 21% x 17% in. 
(55.6x44.1 cm) 

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter 


J. Braz, 1 Leningrad and Paris (estate sale, 
Paris, Charpentier [Alphonse Bellier], 

12 May 1938, lot 13, pi. V). [art market, 
Amsterdam]. F. G. J. Beerkens, 2 Haarlem, 
by 1939, sold 1983 to; [Hoogsteder- 
Naumann, Ltd., New York, sold 1983 to]; 
Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter, 

Los Angeles, given 2009 to; LACMA. 


Los Angeles 1992-93, no. 31, pp. 124-27, 


Spriggs 1967, p. 83; Grisebach 1974, no. 

65, pp. 237-38, fig. 69; Delft-Cambridge- 

Fort Worth 1988, pp. 184-85, fig. 10.1; 

Sutton 1992, p. 103, fig. 1; Rotterdam- 

Aachen 2006-7, pp- 70,73,74,76m, 80. 


1 Probably the artist Osip Braz, aka Josif (1873-1936), 
who painted in Germany and France and was 
elected member of the Counsel of the Hermitage 
Museum, Saint Petersburg, where he became 
conservator of the Dutch collection of the 

2 F. G. J. Beerkens was the director of a business that 
specialized in fine woods: oak, mahogany, teak, 
etc. The company operated in Haarlem from 1919 
to 1969. 

19 (back to entry) 

Philips Koninck 


Panoramic Landscape with a Village , 

ca. 1648-49 

Oil on wood, 11 14 x 14% in. 
(28.6x36.5 cm) 

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter 


Thomas Sivright (1745-1835), 1 Megget- 
land and Southouse, Edinburgh (estate 
sale, Edinburgh, Tait, 18 Feb. 1836, lot 

2921, as Rembrandt, sold for £18.18 to); 
James Maitland Hog (1799-1858), 
Newliston (near Edinburgh), 2 Scotland, 
by inheritance to his son; 3 Thomas 
Alexander Hog (1835-1908), Newliston, 
Scotland, by inheritance to his son; 
Steuwart Bayley Hog (1876-1944), Bart, 
of Newliston, Scotland (sale, London, 
Sotheby’s, 16 May 1928, lot 10, as Philips 
Koninck, sold for £4 20 to); [Asscher and 
Welker, London]. [P. de Boer, Amster¬ 
dam]. Dr. Erich Liibbert (1883-1963), 
Schloss Sommerswalde, Schwante bei 
Berlin, 1936 until 1945, then South-West 
Africa, 4 by descent to; Liibbert family, 
South Africa, sold 1978 to/through; 
[Newhouse Galleries, New York, to]; 

Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter, 

Los Angeles, given 2009 to; LACMA. 


Los Angeles-Boston-New York 1981-82, 
no. 16, pp. 67-69, ill.; Los Angeles 
1992-93, no. 16, pp. 67-69, ill. 


Borenius 1928, p. 268; Gerson 1936 
(1980), p. 103, no. 9; Sumowski 1983, 
vol. 3, no. 1045, pp. 1532,1545, ill-; 
1987-88, p. 368; Gaskell 1990, p. 3691113; 
Liedtke 2007, vol. 1, pp. 406-7. 


1 Thomas Sivright was a founding director of the 
Royal Institution. His extensive and eclectic 
personal collection was sold following his death. 
Edinburgh 1992, p. 170. 

2 Newliston was purchased in 1747 from John 
Dalrymple, 2nd Earl Stair, by Roger Hog, a 
London merchant whose son commissioned 
Robert Adam to design the present house, which 
remains in the family’s possession. 

3 According to a large handwritten paper label 
attached to the reverse of the painting: “Newhit... 
July 26 /1858. This Picture of Rembrandt was 
purchased by me at the sale of pictures belonging 
to the late Mr. Sievewright of Miggetland 
[Meggetland near Edinburgh]. Mr. David Loring 
shewed me Rembrandt’s markR in the right-hand 
corner below [no longer visible]. JMH 27 Vi x 

35 Vi.” “JMH” was probably James Maitland Hog 
(1799-1858) of Newliston, whose grandson sold 
the painting in 1928. 

4 The German jurist and wealthy industrialist Dr. 
Erich Liibbert bought Schloss Sommerswalde in 
1922 after having lived for twelve years in 
South-West Africa (former German colony, now 


Namibia). In Africa Lubbert founded Consolidated 
Mines, which he later amalgamated with Dr. Beers 
as De Beers Consolidated Mines. He was also the 
sole owner of Dyckshoff and Widmann, a multi¬ 
national corporation based in Germany that 
constructed roads and railroads. A pro-fascist, 
Lubbert and his family fled the Soviet Army on 23 
April 1945 and went to South-West Africa (then 
under South African rule), where he died in 1963. 
Baird 1987 and, 
accessed 5 Jan. 2015. 

20 (back to entry) 

Aert van der Neer 


Frozen River with a Footbridge, 
ca. 1645-55 

Oil on wood, 15 x 19% in. 

(38.1x49.2 cm) 

Signed lower right: AVDN 

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward W. Carter 



Sir Montague John Cholmeley (1802- 
1874), 2nd Bart., Easton, Co. Lincoln. 1 
Probably "A Gentleman” (sale, London, 
Christie’s, 17 Dec. 1915, lot 117, as " A Frozen 
River Scene, with Figures: Moonlight, on 
panel, 14 Vz in. by 19 in.,” sold for £37.16 
to); 2 Lindlar. 3 "Different Properties” 
(sale, London, Christie’s, 30 Nov. 1917, 
lot 42, as "A Frozen River Scene, with 
Buildings and Figures, on panel—14 Vz in. 
by 19 in.,” sold for £25.4 to); [Van der 
Kar, London]. "Property of a Lady” (sale, 
London, Christie’s, 29 Mar. 1974, no. 67, 
ill., sold for £7,500 to); [Smith]. [David 
Koetser, Zurich, sold 1976 to]; Mr. and 
Mrs. Edward William Carter, Los 
Angeles, given 2003 to; LACMA. 


On loan. The Metropolitan Museum of 
Art, New York, Dec. 1975-Mar. 1976; 

Los Angeles-Boston-New York 1981-82, 
no. 17, pp. 70-72, ill. of infrared detail; 
Los Angeles 1992-93, no. 17, pp. 70-72, 
ill., p. 71, fig. 1, infrared detail. 


Connoisseur 1974; Schulz 2002, no. 35, 
p. 136, pi. 4, ill. 15; "The Gift of Mr. and 
Mrs. Carter” 2003, p. 21; Liedtke 2007, 
vol. 1, p. 511. 


1 Label attached to the back of the panel is printed 
with Cholmeley’s coat of arms and “Sir Montague 
John Cholmeley, Bart.” 

2 Possibly sold from the estate of Captain Sir 
Montague Aubrey Rowley Cholmeley (1876-1914), 
4th Bart., Easton, grandson of Sir Montague John 
Cholmeley. The younger Sir Montague was killed 
in action 24 December 1914. Although the 
dimensions agree with the Carter painting, the 
description of the painting as “moonlight” does 
not. The discrepancy may, however, be attributed 
to dirty varnish that could have made the 
painting appear to represent evening or night. 

3 Possibly Max Lindlar, who in 1926 was noted as 
having been head of the Bechstein Piano 
Company, 40 Wigmore Street, London, for forty 
years. Grew 1926, p. 54. 

21 (back to entry) 

Clara Peeters 

(act. 1607-21) 

Still Life with Cheeses, Artichoke, 
and Cherries, ca. 1615 
Oil on wood, 13 % x 18% in. 
(33.3x46.7 cm) 

Signed lower left, on edge of table: 

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward W. Carter 


Johanna Suzanne Goekoop-de Jongh 
(1877-1946), Breda, in 1938. Edmond 
Hertzberger (1904-1993), 1 Lugano, sold 
1982 through; [S. Nystad Oude Kunst 
B.V., The Hague, to]; Mr. and Mrs. 
Edward William Carter, given 2003 to; 


Rotterdam 1938, no. 18, fig. 50; Los 
Angeles-Boston-New York 1981-82 
(Boston and New York only), addendum, 
ill.; Los Angeles 1992-93, no. 32, pp. 
128-31, ill. 


Vroom 1945, no. 244, pp. 114-15,215; 

Paris 1952, p. 35; Greindl 1956, pp. 35, 

178, as formerly Goekoop-de Jongh; 
Vroom 1980-99, vol. 1 (1980), no. 494, 
p. 99; Vroom 1980-99, vol. 3 (1999), p. 157 , 
ill. 118; Greindl 1983, no. 9, p. 371, as 
formerly Goekoop-de Jongh; Decoteau 
1992, pp. 34-36,181, ill. 22, pi. IX, p. 127, 
confuses references with another 
painting; Amsterdam-Cleveland 
1999-2000, p. i3on9; "The Gift of Mr. 
and Mrs. Carter” 2003, p. 21, fig. 3; 

Antwerp-Madrid 2016-17, pp. 18,19,37, 

50, 53 ,61,72, 99 ,113, H9nn6,13, fig. 5; 

The Hague 2017, pp. 173-74, fig- 19a. 


1 Edmond Hertzberger was a wealthy Dutch 
industrialist (ready-made clothing) and collector. 
A Jew, he fled the Netherlands after his factory was 
seized by the Nazis in 1940. Eventually making 
his way to England, he joined the Dutch army in 
exile. He returned to the Netherlands after the 
war and rebuilt his factory. He lived in New York 
and the Netherlands, retiring to Switzerland, 
where he died in 1993. A race car driver before his 
marriage, he was the only Dutchman to win a 
Grand Prix race. I am grateful to Egbert 
Haverkamp-Begemann and Dr. Don Hertzberger 
for their help in identifying Edmond Hertzberger. 

22 (back to entry) 

Jan Porcellis 


Vessels in a Moderate Breeze, ca. 1629 

Oil on wood, 16 14 x 24 14 in. 

(41.3 x 61.6 cm) 

Signed lower right, on plank: IP 

Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter Collection 



[Nystad, The Hague, sold to]; Mrs. N. 
Crommelin-Waller, 1 Laren and The 
Hague; [Nystad, The Hague, sold 1977 
to]; Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter, 
Los Angeles, given 2009 to; LACMA. 


On loan, The Metropolitan Museum of 
Art, New York, Apr.-July 1977; Los 
Angeles-Boston-New York 1981-82, no. 
18, pp. 73-75, ill.; Los Angeles 1992-93, 
no. 18, pp. 73 - 75 , HI-; Madrid 1994 ~ 95 , 
no. 45, pp. 170-71, ill.; Amsterdam 2000, 
no. 84, pp- 134 - 35 , ill. 


J. Walsh 1971, no. A45, pp. 111-12,236-37; 
Bol 1973, pp. 98,102, fig. 98; J. Walsh 
1974, pp. 738,741, fig- 30; DaCosta 
Kaufmann et al. 2002, fig. 195; Sluijter 
2013, pp. 348 , 350 , fig. 3. 


1 Although the initial does not agree, she was 
probably Petronella Johanna Waller (1892-1978), 
who married Herman Arnoldus Crommelin 
(1885-1962) in Amsterdam in 1912. He died in 
Laren, and she died in The Hague. 


23 (back to entry) 

Frans Post 


Brazilian Landscape with Plantation 
House , 1655 

Oil on wood, 18% x 24% in. 

(46.7 x 62.9 cm) 

Signed and dated lower center, on rock: 
F. Post /165/5]; inscribed in dark paint on 
left center tree above the roof: D 

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward W. Carter 


Heinrich Theodor Hoch (1845-1905), 1 
Munich (sale, Munich, J. M. Heberle, 

19 Sept. 1892, lot 167). Adolph Bayers- 
dorfer (1842-1901), Munich. 2 German- 
isches Nationalmuseum, Nuremberg, 
in 1909, by exchange 3 Oct. 1947 to; 3 
Valentin J. Mayring (1905-2000), 4 
Hollfeld, bei Bayreuth. Private collection, 
Switzerland; [David Koetser, Zurich, 
sold 1977 to]; Mr. and Mrs. Edward 
William Carter, given 2003 to; LACMA. 


On loan. The Metropolitan Museum of 
Art, New York, June-Sept. 1977; The 
Hague 1979-80, no. 107, p. 113, ill.; Los 
Angeles-Boston-New York 1981-82, no. 
19, pp. 76-79, ill.; Los Angeles 1992-93, 
no. 19, pp. 76-79, ill. 


Von Reber and Bayersdorfer 1889-1900, 
vol. 9 (1897), no. 1050, ill.; Von Frimmel 
1904-12, vol. 3 (1907), pp-124-25; 
Niirnberg 1909, no. 396, p. 120; Von 
Wurzbach 1906-11, vol. 2 (1910), p. 347; 
Souto Maior 1919, p. 117; Molengraaff- 
Gerlings ca. 1928, ill. [n.p.] as in Niirn- 
berg Museum; Martin 1935-36, vol. 2 
(1936), p. 467, fig. 246; Sousa-Leao 1937, 
p. 30, ill.; R. Smith 1938, no. 14, pp. 258- 
59,262,267, fig. 18, as House by the Shore; 
Rio de Janeiro 1942, p. 15; Sousa-Leao 
1948, no. 18, p. 29, ill., p. 99, ill., as 
“Mucambo,” Germanisches Museum, 
Niirnberg; Weltkunst 1950, no. 10, p. 6, 
ill.; Guimaraes 1957, nos. 82,83, pp. 109- 
11,180; Plietzsch i960, pp. 116-17, fig. 192; 
Larsen 1962, no. 28, pp. 102-3,142,163, 
189, fig. 43; Sousa-Leao 1973, no. 22, 

p. 73, ill. and cover; Larsen 1982, p. 340; 
Whitehead and Boeseman 1989, pp. 187- 
88; Dantas Silva 2000, p. 64; “The Gift 
of Mr. and Mrs. Carter” 2003, p. 21, fig. 2; 
Correa do Lago and Correa do Lago et al. 
2007, no. 26, pp. 158-59, ill. with detail. 


1 Heinrich Theodor Hoch was a wealthy real estate 
developer. His father, Theodor, was an economist. 
Bellinger and Regler-Bellinger 2012, pp. 368ff. 

2 The art historian Adolph Bayersdorfer was a 
curator at the Alte Pinakothek, Munich, and the 
founder of the Deutsches Institut Florenz. 

3 Niirnberg 1909, no. 396 (340), p. 120, as 
Germanisches Museum 334, gallery 89. A 
document dated 10 August 1950, signed by Dr. 
Peter Strieder, Haupt Conservator, Germanisches 
National-Museum, Niirnberg, states, “Laut 
Tauschvertrag von 3 Oktober 1947 in das 
Eigentum des Herrn Valentin Mayring, Hollfeld 
bei Bayreuth, iibergegangen ist.” The painting 
was apparently traded for Portrait of a Bridegroom, 
Half Length, Standing in a Landscape, by Anton 
Heusler (act. Annaberg, Saxony, 1525-1561) 

(inv. no. GM 1462). 

4 Valentin J. Arnold Mayring (1905-2000), Munich, 
was trained as an apothecary. An estate sale of his 
property took place in Munich at Neumeister, 
Miinchner Kunstauktionshaus, 21 Mar. 2001. 
Mayring may have purchased the painting by 
Heusler from the sale by Paul Graupe, Berlin, 
17-18 June 1936, lot 52, as by Monogrammist A.G. 
The painting had belonged to the Jewish firm A. S. 
Drey before it was included in the forced sale at 
Graupe. It was restituted to the successors of A. S. 
Drey in 2007 and sold by them through Sotheby’s, 
London, 6 Dec. 2007, lot 137. 

24 (back to entry) 

Adam Pynacker (Pijnacker) 


View of a Harbor in Schiedam , ca. 1650 
Oil on canvas, 21% x 17% in. 

(55.2x45.4 cm) 

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter 


Private collection, France, sold by 1972 
to; 1 [Frederick Mont, New York, sold 
1974 through]; 2 [Newhouse Galleries, 
New York, to]; Mr. and Mrs. Edward 
William Carter, Los Angeles, given 2009 
to; LACMA. 


Los Angeles-Boston-New York 1981-82, 
no. 20, pp. 80-83, ill-; Montreal 1990, 
no. 44, pp. 148-49, ill.; Los Angeles 1992- 
93, no. 20, pp. 80-83, ill-; 

Williamstown-Sarasota 1994-95, no- 4 , 
pp. 11,44-45, ill.; New York-London 
2001, no. 57, pp. 89,112,123ml, 258,290, 
298,305,330,340-42,423, ill- P- 34 i; 
The Hague-Washington 2008-9 
(Washington only), no. 34, pp. 154-55, 
232, ill. 


J. Walsh 1981, pp. 386ff., pi. 11; Harwood 
1983, p. H5n20, ill. p. 81; Harwood 1988, 
no. 30, pp. 24,26,59-60, ill. 30, pi. VII; 
London 1991, p. x, fig. 5; Liedtke 2000, 
pp. 14,15,220, fig. 7; Schiedam 1997. 


1 When acquired, the painting had a brass 
nameplate that included the number 21. The 
collection has not been identified. 

2 In a letter to Wolfgang Stechow, 16 January 1973 
(Pynacker object file. Department of European 
Painting and Sculpture, LACMA), Betty Mont 
informed him that Mr. Carter had bought the 
painting by Pynacker without hesitating a 
minute, and that the old Mr. Newhouse had sold 
him the painting. She concluded saying she was 
pleased that Carter, who is a serious collector, 
purchased it, but is sorry that Sherman Lee 
(director of the Cleveland Museum of Art for 
whom presumably Stechow was inquiring) was 
too late. The painting had been reserved for Mr. 
Carter for a long time. The receipt for the final 
payment of the painting is dated 17 January 1974. 
Mont often worked in partnership with 

25 (back to entry) 

Jacob Isaacksz. van Ruisdael 


Nicolaes Pietersz. Berchem 


The Great Oak , 1652 

Oil on canvas, 33 14 x 41 14 in. 

(84.5 x 104.8 cm) 

Signed and dated lower right: JVRuisdael 

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter 
in honor of the museum’s 25th anniversary 


Cardinal Silvio Valenti Gonzaga (1690- 
1756), Rome, by 1749 1 (sale, Amsterdam, 
De Leth and De Winter, 18 May 1763, lot 
39, as “Een ditto [kapitaal en overheerlyk] 


fray Stuk, verbeeldende een Landschap 
of Bosch-Gezigt: naar ’t midden op de 
voorgrond een Man te Paard, die van de 
jagt schynt te komen, en een ander te 
voet die met hem spreekt; verder op een 
Man die zit te rusten, en een loopende 
Hond: ter regter zyde een Harder en 
Harderin met drie Schaapjes; voorts in 
alien deelen zeer fix en meesteragtig 
geteekent en geschildert, door denzel- 
ven [Nicolaas van Berchem], en mede 
van zyn allerbeste tydt; hoog 30, breet 
41 duimen. 1000-0. Deeze tweeStukken 
zyn op doekgeschilderten welgeconditioneert: 
dog het laatste is zeer wel op panel geplakt 
[canvas attached to panel]/’ sold for 

I, 000 florins). 2 [Pieter Fouquet (1729- 
1800), Amsterdam]. 3 [Pierre Grand-Pre, 4 
Paris (sale, Paris, Jacques Langlier and 
Alexandre Paillet, 16-24 Feb. 1809, 

lot 98, sold for 7,001 francs to)]; [Pierre- 
Joseph LaFontaine (1758-1835)]. 5 
Charles-Ferdinand (1778-1820), due de 
Berri (private contract sale, London, 
Christie’s, Apr. 1834, lot 37, as A View on 
the Borders of a Vast Forest of Ancient Oak, 

J. Ruysdael with figures by Berghem, 
bought in for £480); Marie-Caroline 
(1798-1870), duchesse de Berri (sale, 
Paris, Paillet, 4-6 Apr. 1837, lot 26, as 
“Ruysdael et Berchem, Le Grand Chene,” 
sold for 8,000 francs). Samuel Wheeler 
(d. 1871), Brighton and Barrow Hills, 
Surrey, by 1856 (sale, London, Christie’s, 
29 July 1871, lot 105, figures and animals 
“admirably introduced by N. Berchem,” 
as signed by both artists, and dated 1652, 
sold for £702.155. to); [King]. George 
Cavendish-Bentinck (1821-1891), 

London, by 1876 (sale, London, Christie’s, 
8-14 July 1891, lot 566, sold for £1,470 
to); [P. & D. Colnaghi, London]. Arthur 
Sanderson (1846-1915), 6 Edinburgh, in 
1893. [P* & D- Colnaghi, London, sold 
1897 to]; Friedrich Christian Karl 
Fleischmann (d. 1907), Liverpool and 
London, by inheritance to his widow; 
Eliza Fleischmann, nee Ashcroft 

(d. 1924), London, by inheritance to her 
son; Frederick Noel Ashcroft [Fleisch¬ 
mann] (1878-1949)/ London, by 
inheritance to his widow; Constance 
Muriel Im Thurn Ashcroft (b. 1880) and 
heirs, sold through; 8 [Harari & Johns, 
Ltd., London, in 1985 to]; Mr. and Mrs. 
Edward William Carter, Los Angeles, 
given 1991 to; LACMA. 


London 1856, no. 22, Landscape and 
Figures; Ruysdael and Berghem, lent by 
Samuel Wheeler; London 1867, no. 54, as 
Landscape and Figures, Ruysdael and Berghem, 
lent by Samuel Wheeler; London 1876, 
no. 67, lent by G. Cavendish-Bentinck; 
London 1890, no. 73, Jacob van Ruysdael 
and Nicolas Berghem, signed “J. V. 
Ruisdael 1652,” lent by G. Cavendish- 
Bentinck; London 1903, no. 4, as The 
Outskirts of a Forest, figures by Berghem, 
Smith 103; 9 London 1911, no. 69, as 
signed “J. v. Ruisdael, 1652,” lent by Mrs. 
Fleischmann; London 1915, no. 26, as 
“dated 1662, and signed by both Artists”; 
London 1948-49, no. 142, lent by Noel 
Ashcroft; long-term loan to the City 
Museums and Art Gallery, Birmingham, 
England, Aug. 1947-83, lent by Noel 
Ashcroft; 10 The Hague-Cambridge 
1981-82, no. 16, pp. 58-59, ill. and detail; 
Los Angeles 1990-91, n.p.; Los Angeles 
1992-93, no. 33, pp. 132-37, ill.; Los 
Angeles 2000; Los Angeles-Philadelphia- 
London 2005-6, no. 20, pp. 78-81, 
ill. and detail. 


Smith 1829-42, vol. 6 (1835), no. 103, pp. 
34 and 510, as Cavalier on a Gray Horse; and 
a Soldier on Foot, signed by both Ruisdael 
and Berchem, and vol. 9 (Supplement, 
1842), no. 54, p. 699, updates provenance; 
Blanc 1857-58, vol. 2 (1858), pp. 423-24; 
Hofstede de Groot 1893, pp. 211-12, 
ill. of signature, as in the collection of 
Arthur Sanderson; HdG 1908-27, vol. 4 
(1912), no. 550, pp. 174-75 (only the 
English translation of HdG notes the 
work is signed by both Ruisdael and 
Berchem); J. Rosenberg 1928, no. 339, 
p. 93, as signed by both Ruisdael and 
Berchem; Schaar 1958, p. 36, as staffage 
by Berchem; Ashton, Davies, and Slive 
1982, pi. 6 (detail); Amsterdam-Boston- 
Philadelphia 1987-88, p. 444, fig. 1; Slive 
1987, pp. i69ff., ill.; Montreal 1990, p. 15, 
fig. 1; Sutton 1990-91, p. 109, fig. 5; 
Walford 1991, pp. 80-81, fig. 70, as 
Wooded Country Road; Blankert, 
Barnouw-de Ranitz, and Stal 1991, pp. 
28-29, fig. 11; Slive 1995, p. 225, ill.; Slive 
2001a, no. 380, pp. 115,249,250,291-93, 
ill.; “The Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Carter” 
2003, p. 21; [Marandel] 2005; Fiji 2006-7, 
pp. 87-88; Muchnic 2015, p. 125, ill.; 

A. Walsh (forthcoming). 


1 The posthumous manuscript inventory of 
Gonzaga’s painting collection includes 832 works, 
of which approximately 300 were sent to 
Amsterdam, where they were sold at two auctions. 
Slive 1987, p. i72nio. According to Slive 2001a, 

p. 293m, the inventory, datable to 1756-63, lists 
the painting as no. 154: “Quadro di palmi 4, once 
9 per larghezza, e palmi 3, once 3 per altezza, 
rappresentante un paese, con figure, in tavola, di 
Berclem [sic]” The catalogue, “Catalogo dei quadri 
tuttavia essistenti nella galleria della Ch. Mem. 
Dell’ Emo Sig. Cardinale Silvio Valenti,” is in the 
Biblioteca Communale, Mantua, Misc. 109. 1 ; 
a typescript of the catalogue is at the Wadsworth 
Atheneum and Museum of Art, Hartford, CT. The 
complete inventory is published in Pietrangeli 
1961, pp. 43-71- 

2 The sale catalogue is reproduced in Terwesten 
1770 (1976), pp. 289-309. The sale price and name 
of the buyer appear in an annotated copy of the 
sale catalogue at the RKD-Nederlands Instituut 
voor Kunstgeschiedinis, The Hague. 

3 Fouquet was one of the major buyers at the sale. 
Los Angeles 1992-93, p. 132, identifies the 
painting as lot 67 in Fouquet’s sale through 
Langford, London, 10-11 Feb. 1773, where it is 
described as “Berchem, 67 A Landscape and cattle; 
a summer scene, touched with spirit, well 
composed, and very clear.” The dimensions are 
noted as 2 ft. 8 in. by 3 ft. 4 in. (32 x 40 in.), almost 
two inches smaller in height and width than The 
Great Oak, which measures 33% by 41% in. 
Although the current stretcher is about Va inch 
larger than the painting on each side, there is 
scalloping on the sides and the tacking edges have 
been removed, indicating that the painting was 
probably originally the current size (see Technical 
Report). The Great Oak also does not include cattle, 
suggesting that lot 67 refers to another painting. 
Although the 1773 sale refers to Fouquet as “that 
celebrated collector de Heer Fouquet,” he was 
actually a major dealer. 

4 According to the introduction to the catalogue, 
Pierre Grand-Pre was one of the wealthiest 
merchants of paintings in Paris, especially of 
Netherlandish paintings. Peronnet and 
Fredericksen 1998, vol. 1, p. 55. 

5 Pierre-Joseph Lafontaine was a painter active in 
Cortrai and Paris. Following the French 
Revolution, he became an art dealer, buying at 
auction throughout Europe for French museums. 

6 Arthur Sanderson was a wine merchant and 
whisky distiller, who built Learmonth Terrace 
House in Edinburgh in 1891 to house his 
collection of old master paintings, antiques, 
porcelain, and sculpture. Financial difficulties led 
him to sell his collection in a series of sales 
between 1908 and 1913. Edinburgh 1992, p. 170. 

7 The Fleischmann sons changed the family name 
from Fleischmann to Ashcroft during World War I. 

8 I am grateful to James Mitchell of John Mitchell 
Fine Paintings, London, for clarifying the 
provenance. According to him, the painting was 
sold through Harari & Johns by the Ashcroft heirs 
on whose behalf his father, Peter Mitchell, was 
working. James Mitchell’s grandfather, John 


Mitchell, knew the Ashcroft sisters well and sold 
a number of paintings for them in the 1960s. The 
firm continues to be involved in the dispersal of 
the collection. 

9 No dimensions are cited. An annotated copy of 
the catalogue at the RKD also notes that it is 
dated 1652. 

10 I am grateful to Elizabeth Donaghue, volunteer 
research assistant. Curatorial Services Depart¬ 
ment at the Birmingham Museums and Art 
Gallery, for confirming that Noel Ashcroft was 
the anonymous lender to the museum and the 
dates of the loan. The loan apparently continued 
under the Ashcroft heirs and was still officially 
on long-term loan to Birmingham when it was 
lent to The Hague-Cambridge 1981-82. A similar 
situation is reported in the online catalogue of 
the Art Institute of Chicago: in 1950 Ashcroft’s 
widow (Charlotte Im Thurn Ashcroft [b. 1880; m. 
1904]) lent Aelbert Cuyp’s painting A View of 
Vianen with a Herdsman and Cattle by a River, inv. no. 
2003.169, to Birmingham, where it was later on 
long-term loan. 

Jacob Isaacksz. van 


View of Grainfields with a Distant Town , 
ca. 1670 

Oil on canvas, 20 k 4 x 25 Vz in. 

(51.4x64.8 cm) 

Signed lower left: JVRuisdael 

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter 
M. 2009.106.12 


Friedrich Moritz (1742-1814), Freiherr, 
after 1803 Graf von Brabeck, Soder, near 
Hildesheim, by 1792, 1 by inheritance 
through his daughter; Philippine 
(1796-1821), Grafin von Brabeck, to her 
husband (m. 1817); Andreas Stolberg 
(1786-1863), Freiherr von Soder (sale, 
Hannover, Rumpler, 31 Oct. 1859, lot 
230). Freiherr von Savigny, 2 Berlin. [P. 
Cassirer, Berlin, sold 1918 to]; Private 
collection, Sweden. Private collection, 
Norway. [Frederick Mont, New York, 
1970, sold to]; Mr. and Mrs. Edward 
William Carter, Los Angeles, given 2009 
to; LACMA. 


Ramdohr 1792, no. 264; HdG 1908-27, 
vol. 4 (1912), no. 139a, p. 49; Sutton 1992, 
p. 170; Slive 2001a, no. 97, pp. 121-22, ill.; 
Kern 2011, p. 217, fig. 11. 


1 For Brabeck (also Brabek), see Ramdohr 1792, 
Kracht 1978, and Wittstock 2008. 

2 Probably the jurist Friedrich Karl Savigny 
(1779-1861), who left teaching in 1842, when he 
was named Grosskanzler of Prussia. 

27 (back to entry) 

Salomon van Ruysdael 


River Landscape with a Ferry , 1650 
Oil on wood, 20^ x 32% in. 

(52.1 x 83.5 cm) 

Signed and dated lower left, on ferry: 

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter 


Mrs. M. F. Brandt (estate sale, London, 
Sotheby’s, 16 Nov. 1955, lot 41, sold for 
£10,800 to); [Leonard Koetser Gallery, 
London, still in 1965]; A. E. Allnatt (sale, 
London, Sotheby’s, 6 Dec. 1972, lot 32, 
sold for £89,000 to); [Edward Speelman, 
Ltd., London, sold 1973 to]; Mr. and Mrs. 
Edward William Carter, Los Angeles, 
given 2009 to; LACMA. 


On loan, The Metropolitan Museum of 
Art, New York, 1973; Los Angeles- 
Boston-New York 1981-82, no. 22, pp. 
88-91, ill.; Los Angeles 1992-93, no. 22, 
pp. 88-91, ill. 


Connoisseur 1956; London 1965, no. 6; 
Stechow 1975, no. 363A, p. 135? fig- 36; 
Rickey 1981, p. 26, ill.; Amsterdam- 
Boston-Philadelphia 1987-88, p. 473; 
Sutton 1992, pp. 182, i83n4; DaCosta 
Kaufmann et al. 2002, pi. 191. 


Los Angeles-Boston-New York 1981-82, 
no. 21, pp. 84-87, ill.; Los Angeles 
1992-93, no. 21, pp. 84-87, ill.; Los 
Angeles-Philadelphia-London 2005-6 
(Los Angeles only), no. 44, pp. 134-35, ill. 

ZS (back to entry) 

Salomon van Ruysdael 


View of the River Lek and Vianen , 1668 
Oil on canvas, 22 V2 x 35% in. 

(57.2 x 91.1 cm) 

Signed and dated lower right: 
SVRuysdael 1668 

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter 


Sir William Drake (1817-1890), Weybridge, 
Surrey, by inheritance to his niece and 
adopted daughter; Ella Katharine (Mrs. 
Alfred) Hornsby-Drake (1846-1930), 
London (estate sale, London, Christie’s, 

11 Mar. 1932, lot 88, ill., sold for £630 to); 
[Gooden & Fox, London, still in 1954]. 

[A. Brod, London, in 1955]. 1 J. Lowenstein, 
London. 2 [Noortman & Brod, Maastricht, 
sold 1983 to]; Mr. and Mrs. Edward 
William Carter, Los Angeles, given 2009 
to; LACMA. 


London 1955, no. 25, pi. VIII, as The Mouth 
of a River; Los Angeles 1992-93, no. 34, 
pp. 138-39, ill. 


Stechow 1938, no. 472; Stechow 1975, 
no. 473A, p. 142; Koenhein 2001, p. 60, 
% 5 - 


1 Possibly owned in shares with Gooden & Fox. 

2 Owner of painting cited by Stechow 1975, 
no. 473 A, p. 142. 

29 (back to entry) 

Pieter Jansz. Saenredam 


Interior of the Sint-Mariaherh, Utrecht, 

Oil on wood, 19 ks x 14 ks in. 

(48.6 x 35.9 cm) 

Signed and dated lower right, on the 
plinth: R r Saenredam fecit AN 1651 

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward W. Carter 


Mr. Alcott, Rugby. William Allan Coats 
(1853-1926), Glasgow, sold by heirs 
through; 1 [W. B. Paterson, London, 3 Jan. 


1927, lot 175, for £5,000 to]; 2 [Frits Lugt 
(1884-1970), Maartensdijk, inv. no. 2766, 
sold Feb. 1927 to]; 3 Willy van der 
Mandele (1883-1951), by inheritance to 
his wife; Alida Christina Rabina van der 
Mandele-Vermeer (1891-1988), Bloemen- 
dael John Hampden Mercer-Henderson 
(1906-1963), 8th Earl of Buckingham¬ 
shire, 1963 to; Trustees of the Hampden 
Settlement (sale, Amsterdam, Sotheby 
Mak van Waay, 15 Nov. 1976, lot 46, ill., 
sold to); [Brod Gallery, London, sold 
1977 to]; Mr. and Mrs. Edward William 
Carter, Los Angeles, given 2003 to; 


London 1927, no. 175; Amsterdam 1938 
(not in cat.); 4 Los Angeles-Boston-New 
York 1981-82, no. 23, pp. 92-97, ill.; 
Rotterdam 1991, no. 17, pp. 116-19, ill.; 
Los Angeles 1992-93, no. 23, pp. 92-97, 
ill.; Utrecht 2000-2001, no. 31, pp. 176, 
178-79, ill.; Los Angeles 2002, no. 31, 
pp. 176,178-79, ill.; Madrid 2008-9, no. 6, 
p. 68, pp. 35-38, ill. (Eng. ed., pp. 87-88). 


Utrecht 1961, no. 152a, p. 216, fig. 153a 
(not in Utrecht; only in English ed.); 
Liedtke 1971, p. 1391153; Liedtke 1975-76, 
p. i64n62, fig. 12; Guillaumin 1977, 
p. 140, fig. 2; J. Walsh 1981, p. 388, fig. 12; 
Ruurs 1987, p. ioon58; Schwartz and 
Bok 1989, no. 152, p. 280 and pp. 134,149, 
228,232,279,299,332n25, pi. 217; Tauch 
1991, p. 3275, ill.; Edinburgh 1992, pp. 
144,175; "The Gift of Mr. and Mrs. 
Carter” 2003, p. 21, fig. 4. 


1 The Carter painting was not included in the 
catalogue of Coats’s collection prepared by 
William Paterson in 1904. Edinburgh 1992, p. 144, 
however, notes that a manuscript inventory in the 
possession of the Coats family lists four paintings 
by Saenredam, which were dispersed after 
William Coats’s death. The four paintings by 
Saenredam were Interior of Haarlem Cathedral, 
which hung in the hall of the family estate at 
Dalskairth in Dumfries; two Church Interiors in the 
dining room; and another church interior in the 
billiard room. 

2 Mentioned in Los Angeles-Boston-New York 
1981-82, p. 92, as a sale. The painting was actually 
included in the exhibition The Entire Collection of 
the Late W.A. Coats, Esqre. at the Galleries of the 
Royal Society of British Artists, London, held in 
January 1927. Various articles in the press noted 

that the exhibition was “previous to the projected 
sale of the collection.” The exhibition was 
apparently organized by William B. Paterson, 
who wrote the catalogue. Articles in the London 
press note that Coats was a cotton magnate, 
who over the course of forty years had formed 
a collection of 341 works of all schools and periods, 
from Italian primitives to living British artists. 
This was the first exhibition of the entire collec¬ 
tion, from which he had rarely lent paintings. 

The most important painting in the collection 
was Johannes Vermeer’s Christ in the House of Martha 
and Mary, which was presented to the National 
Gallery of Scotland by Coats’s sons. The reference 
to the 1904 catalogue of the exhibition originally 
came from Frits Lugt’s notes (Los Angeles-Boston- 
New York 1981-82, p. 97). Utrecht 2000-2001, 
p. 178m, cites a handwritten note in a copy of the 
catalogue of Coats’s collection at the RKD- 
Nederlands Instituut voor Kunstgeschiedinis, 

The Hague, stating that no. 175 is a painting of 
the Sint-Mariakerk from 1651. 

3 According to a letter in the Saenredam object file. 
Department of European Painting and Sculpture, 
LACMA, dated 26 February 1979, from Carlos van 
Hasselt, director, Fondation Custodia, Paris, to 
Edward Carter, Lugt was largely responsible for 
the formation of the Willy van der Mandele 
collection. Willy van der Mandele was born in 
Haarlem but died in Mozac, Auvergne, France. 

4 According to Utrecht 2000-2001, p. 178. 

30 (back to entry) 

Adriaen van de Velde 


The Beach at Scheveningen, 1670 
Oil on canvas, 15 Vi x 19% in. 
(39-4x50.2 cm) 

Signed and dated lower left, on boat: 
A. v .Veldef/1670 

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter 


Steevens, Antwerp. 1 Cretien-Louis- 
Joseph de Guignes (1759-1845), 2 Paris 
(estate sale, Paris, Bonnefons de Lavialle, 
17 Jan. 1846, lot 38, sold for 4,001 francs 
to); Charles-Marie-Tanneguy Duchatel 
(1803-1867), Paris. Louis Lebeuf de 
Montgermont (i84i?-i9i8), Paris (sale, 
Paris, Georges Petit, 16-19 June 1919, lot 
211, as dated 1630, ill., sold for 24,000 
francs to); [Sedelmeyer, Paris]. 3 A. Preyer, 
The Hague, by 1923 (estate sale, Amster¬ 
dam, F. Muller & Cie, 8 Nov. 1927, lot 33, 

as dated 1670). 4 Anonymous (sale, 
Amsterdam, F. Muller, 30 Nov. 1932, lot 
307). 5 Bastiaan de Geus van den Heuvel 
(1886-1976), 6 Nieuwersluis aan de Vecht, 
by 1939 (sale, Amsterdam, Sotheby Mak 
van Waay, 26 Apr. 1976, lot 74, sold to); 
[G. Cramer, The Hague, for]; 7 Mr. and 
Mrs. Edward William Carter, Los 
Angeles, given 2009 to; LACMA. 


Rotterdam 1939-40, no. 54, fig. xxxii; 
Rotterdam 1945-46, no. 48, ill.; The 
Hague 1948, no. 268; on loan, Stedelijk 
van Abbe Museum, Eindhoven, 

1949-50; Dordrecht 1951 (mentioned as 
exh. in 1976 sale cat. but unidentified 
and possibly independent loan); 
Schiedam 1952-53, no. 80; Arnhem 
1960-61, no. 72, pi. 67; Dordrecht 1963, 
no. 125, fig. 114; San Francisco-Toledo- 
Boston 1966-67, no. 61, ill.; Los 
Angeles-Boston-New York 1981-82, no. 
24, pp. 98-101, ill.; Los Angeles 1992-93, 
no. 24, pp. 98-101, ill. 


Hirschmann 1923, p. 136, ill. p. 137; 
Stechow 1968, pp. 108,209n29; Bol 1973, 
p. 245n44i; Amsterdam-Boston- 
Philadelphia 1986-87, pp. 493-94, 
495n2; Madrid 1994 - 95 , P- 231m. 


1 According to the De Guignes sale catalogue, the 
painting had belonged to the “Ancienne collection 
Steevens d’Anvers.” 

2 According to the sale catalogue, De Guignes was a 
former resident of China, where he served as 
consul general from France and correspondent of 
the Institut de France. His Dictionnaire chinois, 
frangais et latin, le vocabulaire chinois latin, published 
in Paris in 1813, was strongly criticized as a copy of 
an earlier work (see Wikipedia). The collection 
was especially strong in Dutch paintings. The sale 
of old master paintings from his collection 
succeeded one of Chinese curiosities. 

3 Hirschmann 1923, p. 130, notes that Preyer 
purchased a painting by Pieter de Hooch from the 
Lebeuf de Montgermont auction in Paris, which 
he says took place in 1918. It is possible that 
Sedelmeyer was buying for Preyer or sold the 
painting directly to him after the sale. 

4 Hirschmann 1923, p. 130. Preyer was a dealer, but 
according to Hirschmann, this painting was part 
of his personal collection. 

5 This information apparently came from Hans 
Cramer. The sale catalogue does not identify the 
sellers, and there appears to be no evidence that it 
was, as indicated in Los Angeles-Boston-New York 


1981-82, in the sale of August Janssen, who died 
in 1918. Regarding the collection of August 
Janssen, see Hirschmann 1920. 

6 An unidentified and undated article ( 
/ondernemers/pdf/pers-o523-o3.pdf) describes 
Bastiaan de Geus van den Heuvel as an art collector. 
He was a partner in the family construction firm 
Gebrs. De Geus van den Heuvel & Blankevoort, 
Amsterdam, which built waterworks, railways, 
canals, etc. After retiring from the firm in 1929, 
Bastiaan de Geus van den Heuvel devoted himself 
to his large collection of seventeenth-century 
Dutch paintings. 

7 Edward Carter actually purchased the painting 
jointly with Hans Cramer, who attended the sale. 
In late August, after the painting was restored. 
Carter purchased Cramer’s half share. 

31 (back to entry) 

Esaias van de Velde 


Cottages and Frozen River, 1629 

Oil on paper, mounted on wood, 

8% x 13 V 8 in. (21.3 x 33.3 cm) 

Signed and dated lower left: E. V. VELDE 


Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter 



[D. A. Hoogendijk & Co., Amsterdam]. 2 
Private collection, Groningen, ca. 
1948-80; Private collection, Wassenaar, 
1980; [Nystad, The Hague, in 1980, sold 
1981 to]; Mr. and Mrs. Edward William 
Carter, given 2009 to; LACMA. 


Los Angeles-Boston-New York 1981-82, 
no. 25, pp. 103-4, ill.; Amsterdam- 
Boston-Philadelphia 1987-88, no. 108, 
pp. 502-3, ill.; Los Angeles 1991-92, 
no. 25, pp. 103-4, ill. 


Keyes 1984, no. 85, pp. 72,142, pi. 258, 
pi. XXIV; Briels 1997, pp. 236-37, fig. 174b. 


1 On the back of the panel is a gray wax seal with 
three horizontally displayed keys and an illegible 
remnant of a red wax seal. 

2 According to Nystad. 

32 (back to entry) 

Willem van de Velde the 


Beach with Fishing Boats Fulled Up 
on Shore, ca. 1673 
Oil on wood, 12% x 1 6 15 /\e in. 
(31.4x43 cm) 

Signed lower center, on a piece of 
driftwood: WW 

Gift of Mrs. and Mrs. Edward William Carter 


Richard Winstanley (d. 1836), London, 
by 1835 1 (estate sale, London, Christie’s, 
16 Mar. 1850, lot 57, sold for 189 guineas 
to); [Holloway]. 2 Richard Winstanley, 
London (estate sale, London, Christie’s, 

6 Mar. 1858, lot 33, sold for £131.5.0 to); 
[Alfred Gritten, London]. 3 Major J. L. 
Curtis, Langford Hall, Newark, 
Nottinghamshire (sale, London, 
Christie’s, 9 July 1937, lot 95, sold for 
£378 to); [Horace Buttery, London]. 
[Thos. Agnew & Sons, London, sold 1962 
to]; [P. de Boer, Amsterdam, sold 1962 
to]; H. Becker, Dortmund, until at least 
1967, sold through; [G. Cramer Oude 
Kunst, The Hague, to]; Mr. and Mrs. 
Edward William Carter, Los Angeles, 
given 2009 to; LACMA. 


Los Angeles-Boston-New York 1981-82, 
no. 26, pp. 106-8, ill.; Los Angeles 
1992-93, no. 26, pp. 106-8, ill. 


Smith 1829-42, vol. 6 (1835), no. 150; 
HdG 1908-27, vol. 7 (1923), no. 344, 
p. 94; Fritz 1967, no. 89, ill.; M. Robinson 
1973 - 74 , vol. 2 (1974), no. 971, P- 23; 

J. Walsh 1981, p. 384, fig. 5; M. Robinson 
1990, vol. 2, no. 61, pp. 876-78; The 
Hague 2002, pp. 180-81, fig. 34a. 


1 According to Smith 1829-42, vol. 6 (1835), no. 150. 
M. Robinson 1990, says “probably” Winstanley. 
The identification of the Carter painting with that 
in the Winstanley auctions of 1850 and 1858 is 
confirmed by the annotation in the copy of the 
1858 sale at the Getty Research Institute as well as 
by a label affixed to the back of the panel by Alfred 
Gritten. In the 1850 sale, Richard Winstanley is 
identified as “Esq.” He may be related to 
Winstanley auctioneers who were active in 
Liverpool from at least 1803 to 1841. 

2 The painting was probably bought in. Holloway 
is listed as the buyer of seven of the ten paintings 
that reappear in the 1 April 1858 sale of paintings 
from the collection of Richard Winstanley. 

3 The name was previously identified as Alfred 
Grilten, undoubtedly a misreading of Michael S. 
Robinson’s handwritten note to Hannah Carter 
attached to a letter of 10 July 1976 (Van de Velde 
object file. Department of European Painting and 
Sculpture, LACMA). According to Robinson, who 
cited information from the London Post Office 
Directories, Alfred Gritten was an art dealer 
located at 74 Piccadilly, London, from 1859 to 1861. 
Robinson speculated that he was “one of the 
sons of Henry Gritten & Sons, picture dealers, 
who were at 9 King Street (almost next-door 

to Christie’s) from 1844 to 1858.” A letter dated 
28 February 1861 (Van de Velde object file. 
Department of European Painting and Sculpture, 
LACMA) addressed “Dear Sir” with the address 74 
Piccadilly [London], confirms that the buyer was 
Alfred Gritten. The signature is broken but the 
letter appears to be signed “H. Graves [for?] Alfred 

33 (back to entry) 

Willem van de Velde 
the Younger and workshop 


A Yacht and Other Vessels in a Calm, 1671 
Oil on canvas, 13 14 x 17 14 in. 

( 33 - 7 X 43-8 cm) 

Signed and dated lower right, on plank 
in water: w v velde 1671 

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter 



Possibly Despeniel, Paris, 1765; 1 [Frederic] 
Kalkbrenner (1785-1849), 2 sold Paris, 
1835, for 5,500 francs to; 3 [Christianus 
Johannes Nieuwenhuys, Brussels and 
London, sold by 1836 to]; Joseph 
Barchard, London, by inheritance to; 4 
Francis Barchard (d. 1856), Horsted 
Place, Uckfield, Sussex, by inheritance 
to his son; Elphinstone Barchard (1827- 
1893), by inheritance to his great- 
nephew; 5 Francis Barchard (d. ca. 1932), 
Horsted Place, Uckfield, Sussex, by 
inheritance to his wife; Maud Barchard, 6 
Horsted Place, Uckfield, Sussex (sale, 
London, Sotheby’s, 2 July 1958, lot 35, 
sold for £2,100 to); [Edward Speelman, 
Ltd., London, sold Nov. 1958 to]; 
[Kleinberger & Co., New York, sold 1959 
to]; Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter, 
Los Angeles, given 2009 to; LACMA. 



London 1836, no. 39, as Sea-shore , with a 
Yacht and Other Vessels , lent by Joseph 
Barchard, Esq.; London 1875, no. 245, as 
Dutch Boats in a Calm, 12 Yzx 17, lent by F. 
Bar chard; Los Angeles-Boston-New 
York 1981-82, no. 27, pp. 109-11, ill.; Los 
Angeles 1992-93, no. 27, pp. 109-11, ill.; 
San Marino 1995, no. 30, p. 34, ill. 


Smith 1829-42, vol. 9 (Supplement, 
1842), no. 2, p. 757, as collection Joseph 
Barchard; 7 HdG 1908-27, vol. 7 (1923), 
no. 263, p. 74; 8 J. Walsh 1981, p. 384, fig. 

6; M. Robinson 1990, vol. 1, no. 62, pp. 
363-64, ill. p. 360. 


1 According to Kleinberger. Michael Robinson says 
there is no evidence for this. 

2 The musician Frederic Wilhelm Michael 
Kalkbrenner also owned Jacob van Ruisdael’s 
Extensive Landscape with a Ruined Castle and a Village 
Church (private collection. New York), Slive 2001a, 
no. 56. An estate sale of Frederic Kalkbrenner’s 
collection of thirty old master paintings was held 
in Paris by Laneuville on 14 January 1850. 

3 According to M. Robinson 1990, vol. 1, p. 364, 
referring to Smith 1829-42. The sale is 

4 The entry for the painting in the 1958 sale 
catalogue incorrectly states that the painting was 

“From the Collection of Joseph Bernhard,” rather 
than Joseph Barchard. According to an annotation 
made by Ellis K. Waterhouse on p. 16 of the Getty 
Research Institute’s copy of the 2 July 1958 sale, 
“Mainly bt. by Joseph Barchard, a client of 
Nieuwenhuys at the beginning of the 19th 
century. He bequeathed them to Francis Barchard, 
thence to Elphinstone Barchard, great uncle of [?] 
Francis Barchard whose widow is the vendor [Mrs. 
Maud Barchard]. (He died ca. 1932.)” It was 
apparently the elder Francis Barchard who lent 
the painting to the Royal Academy of Arts, 
London, in 1875. According to Mireur 1911-12 
(2001), vol. 7, p. 312, in 1828 (sale not identifiable) 
J[oseph] Barchard sold another painting, Un calme, 
which had been in the sale of the due de Choiseul 
in 1772 and described by Mireur, p. 311, as “Un 
calme. Vers la droite, un vaisseau navigue sous des 
oiles de misaine et de hune; une barque est a 
gauche et plus loin, au fond, on apergoit deux 
fregates, un sloop et quelques batiments. Bois 
(23.6 x 27.9).” 

5 The painting and property may have first passed 
to Elphinstone Barchard’s son Edmund 
Elphinstone Barchard (1874-1915), who died on 
the RMS Lusitania in 1915. Edmund was a British 
citizen who was living in Columbus, Ohio, with 
his wife at the time of his death. 

6 Her only son, Lt. Cmdr. Francis Barchard, died in 
action during World War II, 25 November 1941. 

7 “In ‘A View on the Coast during a Calm’ the 

nearest object to the spectator is a fishing smack, 
lying close to a sandbank, with eight men on 
board, and her masts and sails lying on the deck; a 
small boat, with one man in it, lies alongside of 
her. On the right is a yacht, with her carved and 
gilt stern toward the eye, and on her larboard side 
is a small vessel under sail. Others are in the 
distance. 1 ft. 3/4 in. by 1 ft. 6 in.—C.” Although 
Smith’s description confuses the placement of the 
yacht and the number of men on the fishing 
smack (there are only three), the provenance of 
the painting suggests that it refers to the Carter 

8 John Walsh and Cynthia Schneider in Los 
Angeles-Boston-New York 1981-82, p. mn2, 
questioned the identification of the painting as 
HdG no. 263, which they assumed the author had 
not seen “but for which he adapted the 
information from Smith,” since he cited Joseph 
Barchard, 1842, as the last owner. They noted 
discrepancies in the dimensions and description 
of the painting. However, comparing Hofstede de 
Groot’s description of the painting to that by 
Smith reveals that he actually corrected the 
earlier author (see n. 7 above), who incorrectly 
placed the yacht on the right of the painting 
rather than the left. HdG no. 163: “Fishing-boats 
near the Shore in a Calm. Sm[ith] Suppl. 2.—By a 
sandbank in front lies a boat carrying eight men; 
her mast and sails lie on the deck. A small boat 
with one man on board is alongside. To the left is 
a yacht, with her carved and gilt stern turned 
toward the spectator; on her port side is a small 
sailing-boat. Other vessels are in the distance. 
Cloudy sky, presaging a change of weather. 
Canvas. 12^ inches by 18 inches.” The identity of 
the Carter painting with HdG no. 263 and Smith, 
vol. 9, no. 2 is supported by the fact, now 
recognized, that the painting was sold in 1955 by 
a descendant of Joseph Barchard, the owner in 

34 (back to entry) 

Simon de Vlieger 


View of a Beach, 1646 

Oil on canvas, 34^6 x 53 14 in. 

(87.2 x 135.9 cm) 

Signed and dated lower right: 

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter 



Possibly Johanna van den Berch (Bergh), 
Amsterdam and Achtienhoven, widow 
of Gerard Stijls (d. 1673), provost of the 
College of the Admiralty of Amsterdam, 
later wife of Justus van Sonsbeeck, 
sheriff of Achtienhoven, by 9 Feb. 1678, 
as “f.46 1 een Tesselstrant van Jan de 
Vlieger.” 2 Possibly John Stewart (sale, 
London, Barford, 11 Mar. 1783, lot 59, as 
"A sea view on the coast of Holland, a 

calm, with a variety of shipping and 
boats; a very brilliant and transparent 
picture, in high preservation,” sold for 
£48.6). Probably George Watson Taylor 
(1770-1841), London and Erlestoke 
Mansion near Devizes, Wiltshire (sale, 
London, Christie’s, 13 June 1823, lot 51, 
as “A Harbour with Boats near a Strand, 
and a Ship firing a Salute, a Fisherman 
in the front ground; the Scene is 
enlivened by a beautiful sky. An 
Admirable Picture for richness of colour 
and transparent effect,” sold for £131.5 
to); Lawley, 3 18 Grosvenor Square, 
London. T. A. Carlyon, Bournemouth 
(estate sale, London, Christie’s, 4 Oct. 
1946, lot 83, as “The Arrival of the 
Prince of Orange, at Flushing,” sold for 
£483 to); [D. Katz, Dieren]. [A. Kauf- 
mann, London, in 1946]. [Alfred Brod, 
London, 1952]. Mrs. M. D. Langloh-van 
den Bergh, Wassenaar (sale, London, 
Sotheby’s, 10 Dec. 1980, lot 82, sold to); 
[David Koetser, Geneva, sold 1981 to]; 

Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter, 
Los Angeles, given 1995 to; LACMA. 


Los Angeles-Boston-New York 1981-82, 
addendum, n.p., ill.; The Hague-San 
Francisco 1990-91, no. 68, pp. 463-67, 
ill.; Los Angeles 1992-93, no. 35, pp. 
140-43, ill.; Madrid 1994 - 95 , no. 75, 
pp. 248-49, ill.; Los Angeles 2000. 


Stechow 1968, p. I04ni9; Kelch 1971, 
no. 129, p. 148; Bol 1973, p. 184; WCA 32 
(1980), p. 343; J- Walsh 1981, pp. 383-84, 
pi. vii; “The Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Carter” 
2003, p. 21. 


1 46 florins. Note, all the paintings listed in the 
inventory were valued 46 florins. 

2 “A beach at Texel by Jan de Vlieger.” The painting 
is mentioned in the inventory made of Johanna 
van den Bergh’s possessions in anticipation of her 
remarriage: “Inventaris van de goederen die 
Johanna vanden Berch weduwe van Gerard Stijls 
in sijn leven geweldige provost van het Collegie 
ter Admiraliteijt tot Amsterdam heft ingebracht 
by haar huwelijk met Justus van Sonsbeeck schout 
van Achtienhoven,” 9 Feb. 1678, Gemeentearchief, 
Utrecht, GAU Uo8oaoos, fols. 42r-55r (quoted 
from Getty Provenance Index, Archival 
Inventories Database, N-75). No seventeenth- 


century artist is known with the last name De 
Vlieger and the first name of Jan; the attribution 
probably represents the notary’s misreading of 
the S with which Simon de Vlieger signed the 

3 Possibly Paul Beilby Lawley (1784-1852), 1st Baron 
Wenlock, who changed his name to Paul Beilby 
Thompson in 1820. 

35 (back to entry) 

Emanuel de Witte 


Interior of the Nieuwe Kerk in Delft with 

the Tomb of William the Silent, 1653 

Oil on wood, 32*4 x 25% in. 

(82.6 x65.1cm) 

Signed and dated lower right, on the 

column: E • De Witte / Ao 1653 

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward W. Carter 



Possibly anonymous (sale, Soeterwoude 
near Leiden, 15 June 1779, lot 10, 
described as "Het Choor van de nieuwe 
Kerk te Delft, met het Monument van 
Prins Willem den Eersten; ’t welk 
gedeeltelyk door een gordyn (dat daar 
voor schynt te hangen) bedekt word, 
konstig op panel geschildert. Hoog 24, 
breed 20c!,” 1 sold for 125 florins to); 
[Abraham Delfos (1731-1820), Leiden]. 2 
[Newhouse Galleries, New York, sold 
1978 to]; Mr. and Mrs. Edward William 
Carter, Los Angeles, given 2003 to; 


Los Angeles-Boston-New York 1981-82, 
no. 28, pp. 112-16, ill.; Rotterdam 1991, 
no. 34, pp. 184-87, ill. and cover; Los 
Angeles 1992-93, no. 28, pp. 112-16, ill.; 
New York-London 2001, no. 93, pp. 108, 
436-39, ill. 


Jantzen 1979, no. 615b, p. 241; J. Walsh 
1981, pp. 387-88, ill; Liedtke 1982, no. 
237, pp. 115,125, ill. VIII; Montias 1987, 
p. 73; Harwood 1988, p. 24; Montias 1989, 
fig. 53; Gout and Verschuyl 1989, ill.; 

L. de Vries 1992, p. 53, fig. 71; Takayama 
ca. 1996; Liedtke 2000, pp. 126-27; 
London 2001, pp. 40-41, ill. 


1 “The choir of the New Church of Delft, with the 
monument of Prince William the First; which is 
partly covered with a curtain (that appears to 
hang), artfully painted on panel, height 24, width 
20 duim.” A duirn (thumb) is approximately 
equivalent to an inch. The Carter painting is the 
only painting presently known that fits this 
description, except for dimensions. Rotterdam 
1991, p. 185m, notes that errors in measurements 
often appear in old auction catalogues. The 
reference may, however, refer to another, now-lost, 

2 Abraham Delfos was active in Leiden as an 
engraver, dealer, and auctioneer. According to the 
Getty Provenance Index, Sales Catalogs Database, 
N-113, Delfos at various times “owned works of 
considerable importance, and on occasion acted 
as agent for both Mr. Pieter Cornelis van Leyden 
(1717-1788) and his son Diderick, baron van 
Leyden (1744-1810).” 


(back to entry) 

Emanuel de Witte 


Interior of the Oude Kerk , Amsterdam, 

165 [?] 

Oil on wood, 18 14 x 22^6 in. 

(46.4 x56.4 cm) 

Signed and dated lower center, on the 
edge of the lifted paving stone: E. De 
WIT [illegible] 165 [illegible] 

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter 


Probably Wierman, Amsterdam (sale, 
Amsterdam, Van der Land, 18 Aug. 1762, 
lot 106, "Een Gezigt van een gedeelte 
der Oude Kerk te Amsteldam, van 
binnen langs de Westzyde en het Orgel 
heen te zien naar den Predikstoel, 
voorzien met een ryke stoffagie van 
allerhande Beeldjes; alles zeer natuur- 
lyk met een Zonnelicht, dat ’er kwik en 
aardig in speeld, geschildert, door 
Emanuel de Wit; hoog 17 14 , breeti 2 14 
duimen. [sold for] 63- o [florins]”). 1 
Nicholaas Nieuhoff, Amsterdam (sale, 
Amsterdam, Philippe van der Schley, 
Hendrick de Winter, and Jan Yver, 14-17 
Apr. 1777, lot 242, "Hoog 18, en breed 22 
duim. Pnl. Een gezigt van een gedeelte 
der oude kerk, van Amsterdam, van 
binnen ter regter zyde, ziet men den 
predikant op den stoel, de welke van 
een menigte volk, der beide sexen, word 
aangehoord, ter linke zyde een capel, en 
verder \ groote orgel, boven den ingang, 
dit stuk is zeer uitvoerig en verstandig, 

door zyn aangename valligten en 
groote glaazen gedaagd,” sold for 95 
florins to); Wagenaer, Amsterdam. 2 
Anonymous (sale, London, Christie’s, 31 
May 1902, lot 102). 3 [art trade, Paris, 
1942]. 4 Frangois Boucher (1885-1966), 5 
Paris, sold to; M. Salavin, 6 Paris, sold to; 
[Frederick Mont, Inc., New York, owned 
with]; [Newhouse Galleries, New York, 
sold 1968 to]; Mr. and Mrs. Edward 
William Carter, Los Angeles, given 2009 
to; LACMA. 


Paris 1950, no. 85; Los Angeles-Boston- 
New York 1981-82, no. 29, pp. 117-19, 
ill.; Los Angeles 1992-93, no. 29, pp. 
117-19, ill. 


Trautscholdt 1947, p. 125, as dated 165 [4]; 
Manke 1963, no. 44, p. 87, fig. 39, as 
"165(4? eher 9 [illegible])”; Stechow 1972, 
p. 232, fig. 9; Montias 1987, p. 73; 
Scholten 2003, p. 13, fig. 6. 


1 Hoet and Terwesten 1770 (1976), vol. 3, no. 106, 
p. 270. The description agrees with the painting. 
The length noted in the transcription by Hoet and 
Terwesten does not, however, match that of the 
Carter painting but may indicate either a 
misreading or a typo. The numeral 1 directly 
follows the word Breet and is separated from the 2. 

2 This is not Jan Wagenaar, the historian of the city 
of Amsterdam who died in 1773. 

3 The sale was called H. Bedingfeld and others. This 
lot is listed under “Other Properties.” 

4 Trautscholdt 1947, p. 125. 

5 According to the dealer Frederick Mont (letter to 
Mr. Carter, De Witte object file. Department of 
European Painting and Sculpture, LACMA), 
Salavin bought the painting from “Monsieur 
Frangois Boucher (deceased) who was formerly 
the Conservateur du Musee Carnavalet in Paris.” 
In 1944 Boucher mounted an exhibition at the 
museum to celebrate and document for future 
historians the liberation of Paris. 

6 According to Frederick Mont, Salavin was then 
“considered the most important chocolate 
manufacturer of France.” Between 1972 and 1973 
several sales of his apparently sizable collection 
took place in Paris. The sales included old master 
and modern paintings as well as sculpture and 
objets d’art. 




Amsterdam 1665 

Beschryvinge van Amsterdam: Haar eerste oorspronk uyt 
den huyze der Heeren van Aemstel en Aemstellant ... met 
een historisch verhael, vervettende ’tgeen in, en om dezelve, 
van den beginne af, tot dezen tegenwoordigen jare 1665 is 
voorgevalien. Uytverscheyde oude en nieuweHollandtsche 
kronijcken, beschrijvingen, brieven, willekeuren, &. by een 
vergadertmeteen byvoezel van derregeerende heeren ... met 
honderten twintigh ajbeeldingen verfiert. Amsterdam, 

Amsterdam 1900 

Catalogus derverzamelingschilderijen enfamilieportretten 
van de heeren]hr. P. H. Six van Vromade, enjhr. W. Six 
wegensverbouwingin hetStedelijk Museum van 
Amsterdam tentoongesteld. Amsterdam, 1900. 

Amsterdam 1906 

Maitres hollandaise duXVIIe siecle. Exh. cat., Frederik 
Muller & Cie, Amsterdam, 10 July-15 Sept. 1906. 
Amsterdam, 1906. 

Amsterdam 1918 

Album ter herinneringaan de tentoonstellingvan Oude 
Meesters. Exh. cat., Frederik Muller & Cie, 
Amsterdam, 1918. Amsterdam, 1918. 

Amsterdam 1929 

Tentoonstellingvan oude kunst:Door de Vereenigingvan 
Handelaren in OudeKunstin Nederland in het 
Rijksmuseum te Amsterdam. Exh. cat., Rijksmuseum, 
Amsterdam, 1929. Amsterdam, 1929. 

Amsterdam 1933 

HetStilleven. Exh. cat., Kunsthandel J. Goudstikker, 
Amsterdam, 18 Feb-26 Mar. 1933. Amsterdam, 1933. 

Amsterdam 1934 

De Helsche en de Fluweelen Brueghel en hun invloed op de 
kunstin deNederlanden. Exh. cat., Kunsthandel P. de 
Boer, Amsterdam, 10 Feb.-26 Mar. 1934. Amsterdam, 
1934 . 

Amsterdam 1938 

D [irk] Hannema. Schilderijen en teekeningen: PieterJansz. 
Saenredam, 1597-1665. Exh. cat.. Museum Fodor, 
Amsterdam, 1938. Amsterdam, 1938. 

Amsterdam 1952 

Zomer-Tentoonstellingvan oude schilderijen: Collectie C. V. 
Kunsthandel P. deBoer. Exh. cat., Kunsthandel P. de 
Boer, Amsterdam, 4 July-24 Aug. 1952. Amsterdam, 

Amsterdam 1957-58 

Winter-Tentoonstellingvan oude schilderijen: Collectie C. V. 
Kunsthandel P. deBoer. Exh. cat., Kunsthandel P. de 
Boer, Amsterdam, 1957-31 Jan. 1958. Amsterdam, 
1957 - 

Amsterdam 1959 

Catalogue of OldPictures. Exh. cat., Kunsthandel P. de 
Boer, Amsterdam, 1959. Amsterdam, 1959. 

Amsterdam 1976 

Tot leringen vermaak: Beteekenissen van Hollandse 
genrevoorstellingen uit de zeventiende eeuw. Exh. cat., 
Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, 16 Sept-5 Dec. 1976. 
Amsterdam, 1976. 

Amsterdam 1977 

Kunstveilingen Sotheby Mak van Waay B.V. The 
Collection of the Late Dr. Hans Wetzlar. Sale, Amsterdam, 
9 June 1977- 

Amsterdam 1984 

Noortje Bakker et al. Masters of Middelburg. Exh. cat.. 
Waterman Gallery, Amsterdam, 1984. Amsterdam, 

Amsterdam 1990-91 

Bernard Aikema and Boudewijn Bakker. Painters of 
Venice: The Story of the Venetian “Veduta.” Exh. cat., 
Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, 15 Dec. 1990-10 Mar. 
1991. The Hague, 1990. 

Amsterdam 1993-94 

Ger Luijten, Ariane van Suchtelen, Reiner Baarsen, 
et al. Dawn of the Golden Age: Northern Netherlandish Art, 
1580-1620. Exh. cat., Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, 

11 Dec. 1993-6 Mar. 1994. Amsterdam and Zwolle, 
1993 - 

Amsterdam 1997 

Jan Peeters, Eymert-Jan Goossens, et al., eds. The 
Royal Palace of Amsterdam in Paintings of the Golden Age. 
Exh. cat.. Royal Palace, Amsterdam, 6 June-7 Sept. 
1997. Amsterdam and Zwolle, 1997. 

Amsterdam 2000 

Judikje Kiers, Ficke Tissink, et al. The Glory of the 
Golden Age: Dutch Art of the 17th Century. Paintings, 
Sculpture, and Decorative Art. Exh. cat., Rijksmuseum, 
Amsterdam, 15 Apr-17 Sept. 2000. Amsterdam and 
Zwolle, 2000. 

Amsterdam 2007 

Jonathan Bikker, Yvette Bruijnen, Gerdien 
Wuestman, et al. Dutch Paintings of the Seventeenth 
Century in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam. Vol. 1, Artists 
Born between 1570 and 1600. Amsterdam, 2007. 

Amsterdam-Boston-Philadelphia 1987-88 
Peter C. Sutton et al. Masters of17th-Century Dutch 
Landscape Painting. Exh. cat., Rijksmuseum, 
Amsterdam, 2 Oct. 1987-3 Jan. 1988; Museum of 
Fine Arts, Boston, 3 Feb.-i May 1988; Philadelphia 
Museum of Art, 5 June-31 July 1988. Boston, 1987. 

Amsterdam-Cleveland 1999-2000 

Alan Chong and Wouter Kloek. Still-Life Paintings 
from the Netherlands, 1550-1720. Exh. cat., 
Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, 19 June-19 Sept. 1999; 
Cleveland Museum of Art, 1 Oct. 1999-9 Jan. 2000. 
Amsterdam, Cleveland, and Zwolle, 1999. 

Amsterdam-Washington 2009-10 

Pieter Roelofs et al. Hendrick Avercamp: Master of the Ice 
Scene. Exh. cat., Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, 21 Nov. 
2009-15 Feb. 2010; National Gallery of Art, 
Washington, DC, 21 Mar-5 July 2010. Amsterdam, 

Amsterdam-Zwolle 1982 
Albert Blankert, Doortje Hensbroek-van der Poel, 
George Keyes, et al. Hendrick Avercamp, 1585-1634; 
Parent Avercamp, 1612-1679: Frozen Silence. Paintings from 
Museums and Private Collections. Exh. cat.. Waterman 
Gallery, Amsterdam; Provinciaal Overijssels 
Museum, Zwolle, 1982. Amsterdam, 1982. 

Antwerp-Madrid 2016-17 

Alejandro Vergara et al. The Art of Clara Peeters. Exh. 
cat.. Museum Rockoxhuis, Antwerp, 16 June-2 Oct. 
2016; Museo Nacional de Prado, Madrid, 25 Oct. 
2016-19 Feb. 2017. Madrid, 2016. 

Arnhem 1960-61 

Collectie B. de Geus van den Heuvel te Nieuwersluis. Exh. 
cat., Gemeentemuseum, Arnhem, 11 Dec. 1960-26 
Feb. 1961. Arnhem, i960. 

Ashton, Davies, and Slive 1982 
Peter S. Ashton, Alice I. Davies, and Seymour Slive. 
“Jacob van Ruisdael’s Trees.” Arnoldia 42, no. 1 
(Winter 1982): 2-31. 

E. de Jongh with Titia van Leeuwen, Andrea C. 
Gasten, and Hilary Sayles. Still-life in the Age of 
Rembrandt. Exh. cat., Auckland City Art Gallery; 
National Art Gallery, Wellington; and Robert 
McDougall Art Gallery, Christchurch, 1982-83. 
Auckland, 1982. 


Baird 1987 

Robert Baird. “The First Major Importer of 
Trakehner Stock into North America.” American 
Trakehner. Republished 1987 as americantrakehner 

Baltimore 1999 

Nancy Minty and Joaneath Spicer, et al. An Eye for 
Detail: 17th-Century Dutch and Flemish Paintings from the 
Collection of Henry H. Weldon. Exh. cat., Walters Art 
Gallery, Baltimore, 20 June-5 Sept. 1999. Baltimore, 
1999 - 

Barker 1994 

Nicolas Barker. HortusEystettensis: The Bishop's Garden 
and Besler’s Magnificent Book. New York, 1994. 



Adam Bartsch. Lepeintregraveur. 21 vols. Vienna, 

Illustrated Bartsch 

Adam Bartsch. The Illustrated Bartsch. Founding ed., 
Walter L. Strauss, general eds. Anthony S. Kaufmann 
and John T. Spike. New York, 1978-. 

Basel 1987 

Petra ten-Doesschate Chu and Paul H. Boerlin. Im 
Lichte Hollands: Hollandische Malerei des 17. Jahrhunderts 
aus den Sammlungen desFiirsten von Liechtenstein und aus 
SchweizerBesitz. Exh. cat., Kunstmuseum Basel, 

14 June-27 Sept. 1987. Zurich, 1987. 

De Bastide 1766 

Jean-Frangois de Bastide. Le temple des arts; ou, Le 
cabinet deM. Braamcamp. Amsterdam, 1766. 

D. Beck 1993 

David Beck. Spiegel van mijn leven: Een Haags dagboek 
UU1624. Edited by Sv. E. Veldhuijzen. Egodocu- 
menten, deel 3. Hilversum, 1993. 

H.-U. Beck 1972-87 

Hans-Ulrich Beck. Jan van Goyen, 1596-1656: Bin 
Oeuvreverzeichnis. 3 vols. Amsterdam and Doornspijk, 

De Beer 2013 

Gerlinde de Beer. “Anmerkungen zum Werk von Jan 
Porcellis (Gent um 1584-1632 Zoeterwoude bei 
Leiden).” In Liber Amicorum Marijke deKinkelder: 
Collegial bijdragen over landschappen, marines en 
architectuur, ed. Charles Dumas et al., pp. 11-40. The 
Hague, 2013. 

Bellinger and Regler-Bellinger 2012 

Gerhard J. Bellinger and Brigitte Regler-Bellinger. 

Schwabings Ainmillerstrafe und ihre bedeutendsten 

Anwohner.Ein reprdsentativesBeispiel derMiinchner 

Stadtgeschichte von 1888 bis heute. 2nd ed. Norderstedt, 


Ten Berge 1979 

Domien ten Berge. De hooggeleerde enzoetvloeiende 
dichter Jacob Cats. The Hague, 1979. 

Bergen op Zoom etc. 1982 

S. J. H. van Hengel et al. Coif kolfgolf: Van middeleeuws 
volksspel tot moderne sport. Exh. cat., Gemeente- 
museum het Markiezenhof, Bergen op Zoom, 

20 Mar.-2 May 1982; Centrum voor Kunst en Cultuur 
Sint Pietersabdij, Ghent, 15 May-17 June 1982; 
Volkskundemuseum, Antwerp, 10 July-22 Aug. 1982; 
Museum Flehite, Amersfoort, 1 Sept.-i7 Oct. 1982. 
Zutphen, 1982. 

Bergstrom 1947 

Ingvar Bergstrom. “Studier I hollandskt stilleben- 
maleri under 1600-talet.” PhD diss.. University of 
Gothenburg, 1947. 

Bergstrom 1956 

Ingvar Bergstrom. Dutch Still-life Painting in the 
Seventeenth Century. Translation of Bergstrom 1947 
by Christina Hedstrom and Gerald Taylor. London, 


Walther Bernt. Die niederlcindischen Maler des 17. 
Jahrhunderts. With introduction by Hans Sauermann. 
4 vols., 2nd, revised, and enlarged edition. Munich, 


Walther Bernt. The Netherlandish Painters of the 
Seventeenth Century. Translation of 3rd German 
edition by P. S. Falla. 3 vols. London, 1970. 

Bernt 1979-80 

Walther Bernt. Die niederlcindischen Maler undZeichner 
des 17. Jahrhunderts. 5 vols., 4th ed. Munich, 1979-80. 

Van Beverwyck 1636 

Johan van Beverwyck. Schat dergesontheyt met veersen 
verpiert doorHeerJacob Cats. Dordrecht, 1636. 

Bezemer-Sellers 1990 

Vanessa Bezemer-Sellers. “The Bentinck Garden at 
Sorgvliet.” In Hunt 1990, pp. 99-130. 

De Bie 1662 (1971) 

Cornelis de Bie. Het Gulden Cabinet vandeEdel Vry 
Schilder-Const. Antwerp, 1662. Introduction by G. 
Lemmens. Soest, 1971. 

De Bievre 1988 

Elizabeth de Bievre. “Violence and Virtue: History 
and Art in the City of Haarlem.” Art History 11, no. 3 
(1988): 303-34- 

Bijl et al. 2008 

Martin Bijl, Nico Lingbeek, Carol Pottasch, and 
Petria Noble. “Technical Research.” In The Hague 
2008, p. 127. 

Bille 1961 

Clara Bille. De tempel der kunst; of het kabinetvan den 
Heer Braamcamp. 2 vols. Amsterdam, 1961. 

Birmingham 1950 

Some Dutch Cabinet Pictures of the Seventeenth Century. 
Exh. cat., Birmingham Museums and Art Gallery, 
Birmingham, UK, 26 Aug.-8 Oct. 1950. Introduction 
by Mary Woodall. Birmingham, 1950. 

Blanc 1857-58 

Charles Blanc. Le tresorde la curiosite. ... 2 vols. Paris, 

Blankert 1982 

Albert Blankert. “Hendrick Avercamp.” In 
Amsterdam-Zwolle 1982, pp. 15-36. 

Blankert, Barnouw-de Ranitz, and Stal 1991 
Albert Blankert, Louise Barnouw-de Ranitz, and 
C. J. J. Stal. Museum Bredius: Catalogus van de schilderijen 
en tekeningen. The Hague and Zwolle, 1991. 

Van Bleyswijck 1667-81 

Dirk Evertsz. van Bleyswijck. Beschryvinge derstadt 
Delft; betrejfende des seifs situatie, oorsprongen ouderdom, 
opkomst en voortgangh ... voor-af met een korte 
beschrijvinge van Delflandt.... 2 vols. Delft, 1667-81. 

Bode 1907 

Wilhelm von Bode. Rembrandt und seineZeitgenossen. 
2nd ed. Leipzig, 1907. 

Bode 1909 

Wilhelm von Bode. Great Masters of Dutch andFlemish 
Painting. London, 1909. 

Boisclair 1986 

Marie-Nicole Boisclair. GaspardDughet:Sa vie et son 
oeuvre, 1615-1675. Paris, 1986. 

Bol 1952-53 

Laurens J. Bol. “Adriaen S. Coorte, stillevenschilder.” 
Nederlands kunsthistorischjaarboek 4 (1952-53): 


Bol 1955 

Laurens J. Bol. “Een Middelburgse Brueghel-groep.” 
Oud Holland 70 (1955): part 1,1-20; part 2,96-109. 

Bol i960 

Laurens J. Bol. The BosschaertDynasty: Painters of 
Flowers and Fruit. Translated by A. M. De Bruin- 
Cousins. Leigh-on-Sea, i960. 

Bol 1969 

Laurens J. Bol. Hollandische Maler des 17. Jahrhunderts 
ndhe dengrossen Meistern: Landschaften und Stilleben. 
Braunschweig, 1969. 

Bol 1973 

Laurens J. Bol. Die hollandischeMarinemalerie des 17. 
Jahrhunderts. Translated by Hildegard Aarsen- 
Hiirthle. Braunschweig, 1973. 

Bol 1977 

Laurens J. Bol. Adriaen Coorte: A Unique Late Seventeenth 
Century Dutch Still Life Painter. Translated by Mrs. A. M. 
Bruin. Assen, 1977. 

Bol 1980 

Laurens J. Bol. “‘Goede onbekenden’: Hedendaagse 
herkenning en wardering van verscholen, voor- 
bijgezien en onderschat talent.” Tableau 2, no. 3 
(1980): 132-37- 

Bol 1981 

Laurens J. Bol. “'Goede onbekenden’: VI. Schilders 
van het vroege Nederlandse bloemstuk met 
kleingedierte als bijwerk.” Tableau 3, no. 3 (1981): 

Bol 1982 

Laurens J. Bol. “Goede onbekenden”-.Hedendaagse 
herkenning en waarderingvan verscholen, voorbijgezien en 
onderschat talent. Utrecht, 1982. 

Bol 1993 

Laurens J. Bol. “Grepen uit de geschiedenis van de 
kunst in Zeeland (IV).” Zeeuws Tijdschrift 43, no. 2 
(1993): 42-48. 

Van den Boogaart, Hoetink, and Whitehead 1979 
Ernst van den Boogaart, Hendrik Richard Hoetink, 
and P. J. P. Whitehead, eds .Johan Maurits van 
Nassau-Siegen, 1604-1679: AHumanistPrince in Europe 
and Brazil. Essays on the Tercentenary of His Death. The 
Hague, 1979. 

Borenius 1928 

Tancred Borenius. “Twelve Masterpieces of Painting” 
[exhibited at Knoedler, 16-28 Apr. 192 8]. Pantheon 1 
(May 1928): 267-70. 


Boston-Kansas City 2015-16 

Ronni Baer et al. Class Distinctions: Dutch Fainting in 
the Age of Rembrandt and Vermeer. Exh. cat.. Museum of 
Fine Arts, Boston, 11 Oct. 2015-18 Jan. 2016; Nelson- 
Atkins Museum of Art, Kansas City, MO, 20 Feb.- 
29 May 2016. Boston, 2015. 

Boucaud 1958 

Charles Boucaud. Lespichets d’etain: Mesures d vin de 
Vancienne France. Paris, 1958. 

Boxer 1974 

Charles Ralph Boxer. The Anglo-Dutch Wars of the 17th 
Century, 1652-1674. London and Palo Alto, CA, 1974. 

Braun and Hogenberg 1527-1617 (2008) 

Georg Braun and Frans Hogenberg. Civitates orbis 
terrarium: Stadt der Welt ... 1572-1617. Edited by 
Stephan Fiissel. Cologne and Los Angeles, 2008. 

Braunschweig 1978 

Wolfgang J. Muller, Konrad Renger, and Rudiger 
Klessman. DieSprache derBilder. Exh. cat., Herzog 
Anton Ulrich Museum, Braunschweig, 6 Sept.- 
5 Nov. 1978. Braunschweig, 1978. 


Abraham Bredius. “De schilder Johannes van de 
Cappelle.” Oud Holland 10 (1892): 26-40,133-36. 

Bredius 1912 

Abraham Bredius. “De nalatenschap van Jan van der 
Hey den’s weduwe.” Oud Holland 30 (1912): 128-51. 

Bredius 1913 

Abraham Bredius. “De Bloemschilders Bosschaert.” 
Oud Holland 31 (1913): 137-40. 

Bredius et al. 1897-1904 

Abraham Bredius et al. Amsterdam in dezeventiende 
eeuw. 3 vols. The Hague, 1897-1904. 

Brenninkmeyer-de Rooij 1996 
Beatrijs Brenninkmeyer-de Rooij. Roots of 
Seventeenth-Century Flower Fainting: Miniatures, Plant 
Books, Paintings. Leiden, 1996. 

Briels 1997 

Jan Briels. Vlaamse schilders en de dageraad van Hollands 
Gouden Eeuw, 1585-1630/Peintresflamands au berceau du 
Siecle d’Or hollandais, 1585-1630. Antwerp, 1997. 

Brienen 2002 

Rebecca Parker Brienen. “Albert Eckhout’s Paintings 
of the wilde natien’ of Brazil and Africa.” In De Jong, 
Ramakers, Roodenburg et al. 2002, pp. 107-37. 

Brienen 2006 

Rebecca Parker Brienen. Visions of Savage Paradise: 
Albert Eckhout, Court Painter in Colonial Dutch Brazil. 
Amsterdam, 2006. 

Broulhiet 1938 

Georges Broulhiet. Meindert Hobbema (1638-1709). 
Paris, 1938. 

Bruinsma 1954 

Henry A. Bruinsma. “The Organ Controversy in the 
Netherlands Reformation to 1640.” Journal of the 
American Musicological Society 7, no. 3 (Autumn 1954): 

Brunner-Bulst 2004 

Martina Brunner-Bulst. Pieter Claesz.: Der 
Hauptmeister des Haarlemer Stillebens im iz]ahrhundert. 
Kristischer Oeuvrekatalog. Lingen, 2004. 

Brussels 1935 

Vijfeeuwen kunst. Algemeene Wereldtentoonstelling. 
Exh. cat., Brussels, 24 May-13 Oct. 1935.4 vols. 
Brussels, 1935. 

Bruyn 1950 

J[osua] Bruyn. Le pay sage hollandais auXVIIe siecle. Art 
et Style 17 (1950). 

Bruyn 1996 

J[osua] Bruyn. “Dutch Cheese, a Problem of 
Interpretation.” Simiolus 24 (1996): 201- 8. 

De Bruyn Kops 1965 

C. J. de Bruyn Kops. “De Amsterdamse verzamelaar 
Jan Gildemeester ]msz.” Bulletin van hetRijksmuseum 
13, no. 3 (1965): 79-114. 

Buchanan 1824 

William Buchanan. Memoirs of Painting, with a 
Chronological History of the Importation ofPictures by the 
Great Masters into England since the French Revolution. 

2 vols. London, 1824. 

Burke 1976 

James D. Burke. Jan Both: Paintings, Drawings, Prints. 
PhD diss.. Harvard University, 1972. New York, 1976. 

Butkens 1626 

Christophe Butkens. Les annales genealogiques de la 
maison deLynden. Antwerp, 1626. 

Buvelot 2004 

Quentin Buvelot. “Albert Eckhout: A Dutch Artist in 
Brazil.” In The Hague 2004, pp. 17-58. 


Cambridge-Montreal 1988 

Frederik J. Duparc. Landscape in Perspective: Drawings 
by Rembrandt and His Contemporaries. Exh. cat., 

Arthur M. Sackler Museum, Harvard University, 
Cambridge, MA, 20 Feb-3 Apr. 1988; Montreal 
Museum of Fine Arts, 15 Apn-29 May 1988. 

Montreal, 1988. 

“The Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Carter” 2003 
“The Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward W. Carter, Los 
Angeles County Museum of Art.” Apollo 158, no. 502 
(Dec. 2003): 20-21. 

Cats 1880 

Jacob Cats. Alle de werken van Jakob Cats. 2 vols. 
Dordrecht, 1880. 

Chong 1993 

Alan Chong. Aelbert Cuyp and the Meanings of Landscape. 
PhD diss.. New York University, 1992. Ann Arbor, MI, 
1993 - 

Connoisseur 1956 

“In the Possession of Leonard F. Koetser.” Connoisseur 
138, no. 556 (Mar. 1956): cover. 

Connoisseur 1974 

Christie’s advertisement. Connoisseur 185, no. 745 
( 1974 ): 73 - 

Correa do Lago and Correa do Lago et al. 2007 
Pedro Correa do Lago and Bia Correa do Lago et al. 
Frans Post: Catalogue Raisonne. Translated by Izabel 
Murat Burbridge, John Norman, and Joao Roberto 
Moris; English revision by Gerald Gregory and 
Andrew Ellis. Milan, 2007. 

Correia de Andrade 1979 

Manuel Correia de Andrade. “The Socio-Economic 
Geography of Dutch Brazil.” In Van den Boogaart, 
Hoetink, and Whitehead 1979, pp. 257-68. 

DaCosta Kaufmann et al. 2002 

Thomas DaCosta Kaufmann et al. L’artflamand et 
hollandais: Belgique etPays-Bas, 1520-1914. L’art et les 
grandes civilisations. Paris, 2002. 


Dantas Silva 2000 

Leonardo Dantas Silva. Dutch Brazil: Frans Post. The 
British Museum Drawings. Petropolis, Brazil, 2000. 

Dapper 1663 (1975) 

Olfert Dapper. Historische beschryving der stadt 
Amsterdam: Waerin de voornaemstegeschiedenissen.... 
Amsterdam, 1663. Reprint. Amsterdam, 1975. 

Davies 2014 

Alice I. Davies. Antonie van Borssom (1630-1677): 

A Catalogue of His Drawings. Doornspijk, 2014. 

Decoteau 1992 

Pamela Hibbs Decoteau. Clara Peeters, 1594-ca. 1640, 
and the Development of Still-Life Painting in Northern 
Europe. Flamische Maler im Umkreis der grossen 
Meister, vol. 5. Lingen, 1992. 

DeCristofaro et al. 1982 

Paula DeCristofaro et al. “A Technical Analysis of the 
Materials and Methods of Jacob van Ruisdael.” In 
Papers Presented by Conservation Students at the Third 
Annual Conference of Art Conservation Training 
Programmes, pp. 70-90. Queens University, Kingston, 
Ontario, 1982. 

Delft-Cambridge-Fort Worth 1988-89 

Sam Segal. A Prosperous Past/De Rijkdom Verbleck: The 
Sumptuous Still Life in the Netherlands, 1600-1700. Exh. 
cat., Stedelijk Museum Het Prinsenhof, Delft, 

1 July-4 Sept. 1988; Fogg Art Museum, Harvard 
University, Cambridge, MA, 1 Oct.-27 Nov. 1988; 
Kimbell Art Museum, Fort Worth, 10 Dec. 1988- 
4 Feb. 1989. The Hague, 1988. 

Delft-Houston 2006-7 
Sam Segal with Mariel Ellens and Joris Dik. The 
Temptations of Flora/De verleidingvan Flora: Jan van 
Huysum, 1682-1749. Exh. cat.. Museum Het 
Prinsenhof, Delft, 22 Sept. 2006-7 Jan. 2007; 
Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, 18 Feb.-i3 May 2007. 
Zwolle, 2007. 

Demiani 1897 

Hans Demiani. Francois Briot, CasparEnderlein und das 
Edelzinn. Leipzig, 1897. 

De Montebello 1982 

De Montebello, Philippe. Press release. The 
Metropolitan Museum of Art, for the opening of The 
Mirror of Nature on 15 Apr. 1982. The Metropolitan 
Museum of Art, New York, Archives: Edward and 
Hannah Carter. 


Detroit 1926 

The Third Loan Exhibition of Old Masters. Detroit 
Institute of Arts, 1926. Detroit, 1926. 

Detroit 1927 

The Fifth Loan Exhibition of Old and Modern Masters. 
Detroit Institute of Arts, Oct. 1927. Detroit, 1927. 

Detroit 1929 

Wilhelm Reinhold Valentiner. The Ninth Loan 
Exhibition of Dutch Genre and Landscape Paintings 
of the Seventeenth Century. Detroit Institute of Arts, 

16 Oct-10 Nov. 1929. Detroit, 1929. 

Detroit 1939 

Loan Exhibition of Dutch Landscape Paintings: 20th Loan 
Exhibition of Old Masters. Detroit Institute of Arts, 
1939. Detroit, 1939. 

Detroit 1949 

Masterpieces of Paintings from Detroit Private Collections. 
Detroit Institute of Arts, 23 Apr.-22 May 1949. 
Detroit, 1949. 

Dezallier d’Argenville 1745-52 
Antoine Joseph Dezallier d’Argenville. Abregee de la 
vie des plusfameuxpeintres:Avec leurs portraits graves en 
taille-douce, les indications de leursprincipaux ouvrages, 
quelques reflexions sur leurs caracteres, et la manibre de 
connoitre les desseins des grands maitres/parM.*** de 
I’Academie royale des sciences de Montpellier. 4 vols. Paris, 
1745 - 52 . 

Dibbits 2004 

Taco Dibbits. “Aardbeien, abrikozen, kruisbessen en 
perziken: Vier stillevens van Adriaen Coorte.” 
Bulletin van hetRijksmuseum 52 (2004): 152-65. 

Diedenhofen 1990 

Wilhelm Diedenhofen. '“Belvedere/ or the Principle 
of Seeing and Looking in the Gardens of Johan 
Maurits van Nassau-Siegen at Cleves.” In Hunt 1990, 
pp. 49-80. 

Dik and Wallert 1998 

Joris Dik and Arie Wallert. “Two Still-life Paintings 
by Jan van Huysum: An Examination of Painting 
Techniques and Materials in Support of Art 
Historical Research.” In Looking through Paintings: The 
Study of Painting Techniques and Materials in Support of 
Art Historical Research, ed. Erma Hermans et al., pp. 
391-411. Leids Kunsthistorische Jaarboek 11. Baam, 

Dordrecht 1954 

L. J. Bol. Nederlandse stilleven uit vier eeuwen. Exh. cat., 
Dordrechts Museum, 17 July-31 Aug. 1954. 
Dordrecht, 1954. 

Dordrecht 1963 

Nederlandse landschappen uit dezeventiende eeuw. 

Exh. cat., Dordrechts Museum, 6 July-2 Sept. 1963. 
Dordrecht, 1963. 

Dortmund 1954 

Meisterwerke alter Malerei. Exh. cat.. Museum fur 
Kunst und Kulturgeschichte der Stadt Dortmund/ 
Schloss Cappenberg, Apr.-July 1954. Dortmund, 
1954 . 

Du Mortier 2009-10 

Bianca du Mortier. “Aspects of Costume: A Showcase 
of Early 17th-Century Dress.” In Amsterdam- 
Washington 2009-10, pp. 141-63. 


Ebbinge-Wubben 1969 

J. C. Ebbinge-Wubben. The Thyssen-Bornemisza 
Collection. Castagnola, Switzerland, 1969. 

Edinburgh 1992 

Julia Lloyd Williams. Dutch Art and Scotland: A 
Reflection of Taste. Exh. cat.. National Gallery of 
Scotland, Edinburgh, 13 Aug.-i8 Oct. 1992. 
Edinburgh, 1992. 

C. P. van Eeghen 2006 

Christiaan P. van Eeghen. “Simon de Vlieger as a 
Draftsman, I: The Pen Drawings.” Master Dra wings 44, 
no. 1 (2006): 3-47. 

C. P. van Eeghen 2011 

Christiaan P. van Eeghen. “Simon de Vlieger as a 
Draftsman, II: Chalk Drawings Other than Pure 
Landscapes.” Master Drawings 49, no. 2 (2011): 179-221. 

I. H. van Eeghen 1973 

I. H. van Eeghen. “De nakomelingen ban Jan van der 
Heyden.” Maandblad voor de kennis van Amsterdam: 
Orgaan van het Genootschap Amstelodamum 60 (1973): 
128 - 34 - 

Van Eijnden and Van der Willigen 1816-40 
Roeland van Eijnden and Adriaan van der Willigen. 
Geschiedenis dervaderlandsches schilderkunst. 3 vols. and 
suppl. Haarlem, 1816-40. 

Eindhoven 1946 

Herwonnen Kunstbezit. Exh. cat., Stedelijk van 
Abbemuseum, Eindhoven, 1-30 Oct. 1946. 
Eindhoven, 1946. 

Eindhoven 1957-58 

Het Hollandse stilleven, 1550-1950. Exh. cat., Stedelijk 
van Abbemuseum, Eindhoven, 1957-58. Assembled 
by A. B. de Vries for the museums in Luxembourg 
and Liege for which there were different catalogues. 
See Luxembourg-Liege 1957. 

Ertz 1979 

Klaus Ertz .Jan Brueghel derAltere (1568-1625): Die 
Gemalde. Mit kritischem Oeuvrekatalog. Cologne, 1979. 

Evelyn 1983 

The Diary of John Evelyn. Selected and edited by John 
Bowie. Oxford and New York, 1983. 


Falkenburg 1997 

Reindert Leonard Falkenburg. “Schilderachtig weer 
bij Jan van Goyen.” In Leiden 1996-97, pp. 50-69. 

Faucheux 1857 (1969) 

Louis Etienne Faucheux. Catalogue raisonne de toutes 
les estampes quifoment Voeuvre d’Israel Silvestre. Paris, 

Filipczak 1995 

Zirka Zaremba Filipczak. “A New Studio Practice of 
Claesz and Heda: Composing with Real Objects.” In 
Shop Talk: Studies in Honor of Seymour Slive, Presented on 
His Seventy-Fifth Birthday, ed. Cynthia P. Schneider, 
William W. Robinson, and Alice I. Davies, pp. 71-73. 
Cambridge, MA, 1995. 

Frankfurt-Edinburgh-London 2006 
Rudiger Klessman, with Emilie E. S. Gordenker and 
Christian Tico Seifert. Adam Elsheimer, 1578-1610. 
Catalogue for the exhibition Devil in the Detail: The 
Paintings of Adam Elsheimer, 1578-1610. Stadelsches 
Kunstinstitut und Stadtische Galerie, Frankfurt, 

17 Mar-5 June 2006; National Gallery of Scotland, 
Edinburgh, 23 June-3 Sept. 2006; Dulwich Picture 
Gallery, London, 20 Sept-3 Dec. 2006. London, 


Frankfurter 1939 

Alfred M. Frankfurter. Masterpieces of Art Exhibition at 
the New York World's Fair 1939: Official Souvenir Guide 
and Picture Book. New York, 1939. 

Friedlander and Von Falke 1925-26 
Max J. Friedlander and Otto von Falke. Die 
Kunstsammlungvon Pannwitz. 2 vols. Munich, 1925-26. 

Von Frimmel 1904-12 

Theodor von Frimmel. Blatter fur Gemaldekunde. 7 vols. 
Vienna, 1904-12. 

Fritz 1967 

Rolf Fritz. Sammlung [Andreas] Becker. Vol. 1, Gemalde 
alter Meister. Dortmund, 1967. 


Gaskell 1987 

Ivan Gaskell. “Tobacco, Social Deviance and Dutch 
Art in the Seventeenth Century.” In Hollandische 
Genremalerei im lzjahrhundert: Symposium Berlin 1984, 
ed. Henning Bock and Thomas W. Gaehtgens, pp. 
117-37- Jahrbuch Preussischer Kulturbesitz 
Sonderband 4. Berlin, 1987. 

Gaskell 1990 

Ivan Gaskell. Seventeenth-Century Dutch and Flemish 
Painting: The Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection. London, 

Gerson 1936 (1980) 

Horst Gerson. Philips Koninck: Ein Beitragzur 
Erforschung der hollandischen Malerei des XVII. 
Jahrhunderts. Berlin, 1936. PhD diss., Universitat 
Gottingen, 1932. Reprint without changes. Berlin, 

Gibson 2000 

Walter S. Gibson. Pleasant Places: The Rustic Landscape 
from Bruegel to Ruisdael. Berkeley, 2000. 


Gifford 1998 

E. Melanie Gifford. “Esaias van de Velde’s Technical 
Innovations: Translating a Graphic Tradition into 
Paint.” In Painting Techniques History, Materials and 
Studio Practice: Contributions to the Dublin Congress, 7-11 
September 1998, ed. Ashok Roy and Perry Smith, pp. 
145-49. International Institute for Conservation of 
Historic and Artistic Works. London, 1998. 

Goedde 1989 

Lawrence Otto Goedde. “A Little World Made 
Cunningly: Dutch Still Life and Ekphrasis.” In Still 
Lifes of the Golden Age: Northern European Paintings from 
theHeinzFamily Collection, pp. 35-44. Exh. cat.. 
National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, 14 May- 
4 Sept. 1989; Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 18 Oct- 
31 Dec. 1989. Washington, DC, 1989. 

Van Gool 1750-51 (1971) 

Johan van Gool. De nieuwe schouburg der Nederlantsche 
kunstschilders en schilderessen. 2 vols. The Hague, 
1750-51. Reprint. Soest, 1971. 

Gout and Verschuyl 1989 

M. Gout and M. A. Verschuyl. Nieuwe Kerk Delft en 

grafmonumentvan Willem van Oranje. Delft, 1989. 

Grant 1954 

Maurice H. Grant .Jan van Huysum, 1682-1749, 

Including a Catalogue Raisonne of the Artist's Fruit and 
Flower Paintings. Leigh-on-Sea, 1954. 

Graves 1918-21 (1970) 

Algernon Graves. Art Sales from Early in the Eighteenth 
Century to Early in the Twentieth Century (Mostly Old 
Master and Early English Pictures). 3 vols. London, 
1918-21. Reprint. New York, 1970. 

Greenwich-Amsterdam 2006-7 
Peter C. Sutton with contributions by Jonathan 
Bikker et al .Jan van derHeyden (1637-1712). Exh. cat., 
Bruce Museum, Greenwich, CT, 16 Sept. 2006-10 Jan. 
2007; Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, 1 Feb.-30 Apr. 

2007. Greenwich, CT, 2006. 

Greindl 1956 

Edith Greindl. Lespeintresflamands de nature morte au 
XVIIesiecle. Brussels, 1956. 

Greindl 1983 

Edith Greindl. Les peintres flamands de nature morte au 
XVIIesiecle. Sterrebeek, 1983. 

Grimm 1988 

Claus Grimm. Stilleben: Die niederlandischen und 
deutschenMeister. Stuttgart and Zurich, 1988. 

Grisebach 1974 

Lucius Grisebach. Willem Kalf, 1619-1693. Berlin, 1974. 
Groen and Murray 1991 

Karin Groen and Sarah Murray. “Underdrawing in 
Four Early Seventeenth Century Flower Paintings.” 
In Le dessin sous-jacent dans lapeinture, ed. Helene 
Verougstraete-Marcq and Rover van Schoute, pp. 
151 - 54 - Colloque VIII, 8-11 Sept. 1989. Louvain-la- 
Neuve, 1991. 

Guerra 1979 

Francisco Guerra. “Medicine in Dutch Brazil, 
1624-1654.” In Van den Boogaart, Hoetink, and 
Whitehead 1979, pp. 472-93. 

Guillaumin 1977 

J. Guillaumin. “Cours: Tableaux. L’engouement a 
fait monte les prix parfoie follement.” Connaissance 
des arts 300 (1977): 140. 

Guimaraes 1957 

A. Guimaraes. “Na Holanda com Frans Post.” Revista 
dolnstituto historico egeogrifico brasileiro 335 (1957): 


Haarlem-London 2008 

Pieter Biesboer et al. PaintingFamily: The De Brays, 
Master Painters of17th Century Holland. Exh. cat., Frans 
Hals Museum, Haarlem, 2 Feb-22 June 2008; 
Dulwich Picture Gallery, London, 9 July-5 Oct. 2008. 
Zwolle, 2008. 

Haarlem-Zurich-Schwerin 2006-7 

Pieter Biesboer et al. NicolaesBerchem:In the Light of 
Italy. Exh. cat., Frans Hals Museum, Haarlem, 

16 Dec. 2006-15 Apr. 2007; Kunsthaus, Zurich, 

27 Apn-19 Aug. 2007; Staatliches Museum, 
Schwerin, 1 Sept.-2 Dec. 2007. Ghent, 2006. 

Haedeke 1968 

Hanns-Ulrich Haedeke. Zinn. Kataloge des 
Kunstgewerbemuseums Koln, vol. 3. Cologne, 1968. 

The Hague 1881 

Tentoonstellingvan schilderijen van oude meesters in de 
zalen van het Gothische paleis in hetNoordeinde te 
’s-Gravenhage: Ten behoeve derwatersnoodlijdenden, onder 
de hooge beschermingvan HunneMajesteiten den Koning 
en deKoningin. Exh. cat., Paleis Noordeinde, The 
Hague, 1881. The Hague, 1881. 

The Hague 1899 

Catalogus van schilderijen van oud-Hollandsche meesters: 
Collectie C. Hoogendijk. Exh. cat., Pulchri Studio, The 
Hague, 1899. The Hague, 1899. 

The Hague 1920 

Catalogue de la collection Goudstikker d Amsterdam .... 
Exh. cat., Pulchri Studio, The Hague, Nov. 1920. The 
Hague, 1920. 

The Hague 1929 

Tentoonstellingvan schilderijen door oud-Hollandsche en 
Vlaamsche meesters. Exh. cat., Koninklijke Kunstzaal 
Kleykamp, The Hague, 1929. The Hague, 1929. 

The Hague 1936-37 

Oude kunstuitHaagsch bezit. Exh. cat., Gemeente- 
museum. The Hague, 12 Dec. 1936-31 Jan. 1937. 

The Hague, 1936. 

The Hague 1946 

Herwonnen kunstbezit: Tentoonstellingvan uit 
Duitschland teruggekeerde nederlandsche kunstschatten. 
Exh. cat., Mauritshuis, The Hague, Mar.-May 1946. 
The Hague, 1946. 

The Hague 1948 

Zeven eeuwen Den Haag. Exhibition by Vereniging 
“die Haghe,” Gemeentemuseum, The Hague, 

30 July-26 Sept. 1948. The Hague, 1948. 

The Hague 1962 

Viergeneraties Nystad, 1862-1962. The Hague, 1962. 

The Hague 1970 

G. Cramer Oude Kunst. Paintings by Old Masters: 
Catalogue XVIII/1970-1971. The Hague, 1970. 

The Hague 1979-80 

E. van den Boogaart and F. J. Duparc with J. J. van 
den Besselaar, et al. Zo wijd de wereld strekt: 
Tentoonstelling naar aanleiding van de3ooste sterfdag van 
Johan Maurits van Nassau-Siegen op 20 December 1979. 
Exh. cat., Mauritshuis, The Hague, 21 Dec. 1979- 
1 Mar. 1980. The Hague, 1979. 

The Hague 1991 

Paul Huys Janssen and Peter C. Sutton. TheHoogsteder 
Exhibition of Dutch Landscapes. Exh. cat., Hoogsteder & 
Hoogsteder, The Hague, 24 May-13 Oct. 1991. The 
Hague, 1991. 

The Hague 1992 

Beatrijs Brenninkmeyer-De Rooij, Ben Broos, Fred G. 
Meijer, and Peter van der Ploeg. Boeketten uit de 
Gouden Eeuw: Mauritshuis in bloei/Bouquetsfrom the 
Golden Age: The Mauritshuis in Bloom. Exh. cat., 
Mauritshuis, The Hague, 16 Apr-19 July 1992. The 
Hague and Zwolle, 1992. 

The Hague 2001-2 

Ariane van Suctelen et al. Holland Frozen in Time: The 
Dutch Winter Landscape in the Golden Age. Exh. cat., 
Mauritshuis, The Hague, 24 Nov. 2001-25 Feb. 2002. 
The Hague and Zwolle, 2001. 

The Hague 2002 

Quentin Buvelot and Hans Buijs, introduction by 
Ella Reitsma. A Choice Collection: Seventeenth-Century 
Dutch Paintings from the Frits Lugt Collection. Exh. cat., 
Mauritshuis, The Hague, 28 Man-30 June 2002. The 
Hague and Zwolle, 2002. 

The Hague 2004 

Quentin Buvelot, Florike Egmond, Peter Mason, 
Dante Martins, and Elly de Vries. AlbertEckhout: 

Dutch Artist in Brazil. Exh. cat., Mauritshuis, The 
Hague, 27 Man-27 June 2004. The Hague and 
Zwolle, 2004. 

The Hague 2008 

Quentin Buvelot. The Still Lifes of Adriaen Coorte (active 
c. 1683-1707): With Oeuvre Catalogue. Catalogue for 
the exhibition Ode to Coorte. Mauritshuis, The Hague, 
23 Feb.-8 June 2008. The Hague and Zwolle, 2008. 

The Hague 2017 

Quentin Buvelot et al. Slow Food: Still Lifes of the Golden 
Age. Exh. cat., Mauritshuis, The Hague, 9 Mar- 
25 June 2017. The Hague and Zwolle, 2017. 


The Hague-Cambridge 1981-82 

Seymour Slive Jacob van Ruisdael. Mauritshuis, The 
Hague, 1 Oct. 1981-3 Jan. 1982; Fogg Art Museum, 
Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 18 Jan.-n Apr. 
1982. New York, 1981. 

The Hague-San Francisco 1990-91 
Ben Broos with contributions by Edwin Buijsen, 
Susan Donohue Kuretsky, Walter Liedtke, Lynn 
Federle Orr, Juliette Roding, and Peter C. Sutton. 
Great Dutch Paintings from America. Exh. cat., 
Mauritshuis, The Hague, 28 Sept. 1990-13 Jan. 1991; 
Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, 16 Feb-5 May 
1991. The Hague and Zwolle, 1990. 

The Hague-Washington 2008-9 
Ariane van Suchtelen and Arthur K. Wheelock, Jr., 
with contributions by Henriette de Bruyn Kops et al. 
Pride of Place: Dutch Cityscapes of the Golden Age. Exh. 
cat., Mauritshuis, The Hague, 11 Oct. 2008-11 Jan. 
2009; National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, 

1 Feb-3 May 2009. Washington and Zwolle, 2008. 

Hairs 1955 

Marie-Louise Hairs. Les peintresflamands defleurs au 
XVIIe siecle. Paris and New York, 1955. 

Hairs 1985 

Marie-Louise Hairs with Dominique Finet. The 
Flemish Flower Painters in theXVIIth Century. Brussels, 

Harwood 1983 

Laurie B. Harwood. “Les Pynacker du Louvre: A 
propos d’une recente acquisition.” Revue du Louvre 33, 
no. 2 (Apr. 1983): 110-18. 

Harwood 1988 

Laurie B. Harwood. Adam Pynacker (c. 1620-16/3). Aetas 
aurea 7. Doornspijk, 1988. 

Haverkamp-Begemann 1973 
Egbert Haverkamp-Begemann. “Review: Jan van der 
Heyden 1637-1712, by Helga Wagner.” Burlington 
Magazine 115 (1973): 401-2. 

HdG 1908-27 

See Hofstede de Groot 1908-27. 

Van Heemstra 2002 

Geraldine van Heemstra. “Space, Light, and 
Stillness: A Description of Saenredam’s Painting 
Technique.” In Los Angeles 2002, pp. 73-90. 

Heijbroek and Wouthuysen 1999 
J. F. Heijbroek and E. L. Wouthuysen. Portretvan een 
kunsthandel: Defirma van Wisselingh en zijn compagnons, 
1838-heden. Amsterdam and Zwolle, 1999. 

Hengeveld 1865-70 

G. J. Hengeveld. HetRundvee, zijne verschillende soorten, 
rassen en veredeling. 2 vols. Haarlem, 1865-70. 

Henkel 1931 

M. D. Henkel. Le dessin hollandais des origines au XVIIe 
siecle. Paris, 1931. 

Heuer 1997 

Christopher Heuer. “Picture-Curtains and the Dutch 
Church Interior, c. 1650: Framing Revelation in the 
Golden Age.” Chicago Art Journal 7 (1997): 15-33. 

Hirschmann 1920 

Otto Hirschmann. “Die Sammlung August Janssen 
[deceased] (Firma J. Goudstikker, Amsterdam), 

Der Kunstsammler, von Sammelwesen und Kunst- 
ereignissen.” Der Cicerone 12, no. 1 (1920): 17-26, 


Hirschmann 1923 

Otto Hirschmann. “Die Sammlung A. Preyer im 
Haag.” Der Cicerone 15 (1923): 124-37. 

Hochstrasser 1999-2000 
Julie Berger Hochstrasser. “Feasting the Eye: 
Painting and Reality in the Seventeenth-Century 
‘Bancketje.’” In Amsterdam-Cleveland 1999-2000, 
pp. 73-85. 

Hochstrasser 2007 

Julie Berger Hochstrasser. Still Life and Trade in the 
Dutch Golden Age. New Haven, 2007. 

Hoet 1752 (1976) 

Gerard Hoet. Catalogus of naamlyst van schilderyen, mit 
derselverpryzen. 2 vols. The Hague, 1752. Reprint. 
Soest, 1976. 

Hoet and Terwesten 1770 (1976) 

Gerard Hoet and Pieter Terwesten. Catalogus of 
naamlyst van schilderijen mit derselver pryzen. Vol. 3. 

The Hague, 1770. Reprint. Soest, 1976. 

Hofstede de Groot 1893 

Cornelis Hofstede de Groot. “Hollandsche kunst in 
Schotland.” Oud Holland 11, no. 3 (1893): part 1, 

129-48; no. 4, part 2,211-28. 

HdG 1907-28 

Cornelis Hofstede de Groot. Beschreibendes und 
kritisches Verzeichnis der Werke der hervorragendsten 
hollandischenMaler des XVII Jahrhunderts. 10 vols. 
Esslingen, 1907-28. 

HdG 1908-27 

Cornelis Hofstede de Groot. A Catalogue Raisonne of 
theWorksof the Most Eminent Dutch Painters of the 
Seventeenth Century: Based on the Work ofjohn Smith. 
Translated and edited by Edward G. Hawke. 8 vols. 
London, 1908-27. 

Hollstein 1949-2010 

F. W. H. Hollstein. Dutch and Flemish Etchings, 
Engravings, and Woodcuts, ca. 1450-1700. 72 vols. 
Amsterdam, 1949-2010. 

Hollstein 1993- 

F. W. H. Hollstein. The New Hollstein: Dutch and 
Flemish Etchings, Engravings, and Woodcuts, ca. 1450-1700. 
26 vols. to date. Roosendaal, 1993-. 

Holmes 1930 

Jerrold Holmes. “The Cuyps in America.” Art in 

America 18 (June 1930): 164-85. 

Hoogewerf 1919 

G. J. Hoogewerf, ed. De twee reizen van Cosimo de’ 
Medici, Prins van Toscane door de Nederlanden (1667-1669): 
Journalen en documenten. Werken uitg. door het 
Historisch Genootschap (Utrecht), 3rd ser., no. 41. 
Amsterdam, 1919. 

Van Hoogstraten 1678 

Samuel van Hoogstraten. Inleyding tot de hooge schoole 
der schilderkonst: Anders dezichtbare werelt. Rotterdam, 

Houbraken 1718-21 (1976) 

Arnold Houbraken. Degroote schouburgh der 
Nederlantsche konstschilders en schilderessen. 3 vols. in 1. 
Amsterdam, 1718-21. Reprint. Amsterdam, 1976, 
with a new cumulative index. 

Hunt 1990 

John Dixon Hunt, ed. The Dutch Garden in the 
Seventeenth Century. Dumbarton Oaks Colloquium 
on the History of Landscape Architecture, no. 12, 
1988. Washington, DC, 1990. 

Huygens 1653 

Constantijn Huygens. Vitaulium. Hofwyck. Hofstede 
Vanden Heere van Zuylichem Onder Voorburgh. The 
Hague, 1653. 


Israel 1995 

Jonathan Israel. The Dutch Republic: Its Rise, Greatness, 
andFall, 1477-1806. Edited by R. J. W. Evans. Oxford, 
1995 - 

Israel and Schwartz 2007 
Jonathan Israel and Stuart Schwartz, eds. The 
Expansion of Tolerance: Religion in Dutch Brazil 
(1624-1654). Amsterdam, 2007. 


Jameson 1844 

Anna Brownell Murphy Jameson. Companion to the 
Most Celebrated Private Galleries of Art in London. 
London, 1844. 

Jantzen 1979 

Hans Jantzen. Das niederlandischeArchitekturbild. 2nd 
ed. Braunschweig, 1979. 

Dejong 2000 

Erik A. de Jong. Nature and Art: Dutch Garden and 
Landscape Architecture, 1650-1740. Philadelphia, 2000. 

Dejong, Ramakers, Roodenburg et al. 2002 
Jan de Jong, Bart Ramakers, Herman Roodenburg et 
al., eds. Hetexotische verbeeld, 1550-1950: Boeren en verre 
volken in deNederlandsche kunstpicturing the Exotic, 
1550-1950: Peasants and Outlandish Peoples in 
Netherlandish Art. Nederlands kunsthistorischjaarboek/ 
Netherlands Yearbook for History of Art 2002, vol. 53. 
Leiden and Zwolle, 2003. 

Dejongh 1982 

E. dejongh. “The Interpretation of Still-life 
Paintings: Possibilities and Limits.” In Auckland- 
Wellington-Christchurch 1982, pp. 26-37. 



Kann 1907 

Catalogue of the Rodolphe Kann Collection: Pictures. 2 vols. 
Paris, 1907. 

Kelch 1971 

Jan Kelch. “Studien zu Simon de Vlieger als 
Marinemaler.” PhD diss., Freie Universitat Berlin, 
1971 - 

Kern 2011 

Ulrike Kern. “Light and Shadow, Clouds and 
Sunrays: The Concept of Reddering in Netherlandish 
Art.” Oud Holland 124, no. 4 (2011): 209-30. 

Keukenhof 2009 

Kunst, natuuren techniekop en rond kasteel Keukenhof In 
Jaarboek Kasteel Keukenhof Bijdragen tot degeschiedenis 
van het kasteel en het landgoed III. Hilversum, 2009. 

Keyes 1982 

George S. Keyes. “Hendrick Avercamp and the 
Winter Landscape.” In Amsterdam-Zwolle 1982, 
pp- 37 - 55 - 

Keyes 1984 

George S. Keyes. Esaias van de Velde; 1587-1630. With a 
biographical chapter by J. G. C. A. Briels. Doornspijk, 

Klijn 1987 

E. M. Ch. F. Klijn. Eet- en sierlepels in Nederland tot ca. 
1850. Lochem, 1987. 

Kloek and Middelkoop 2012 
Wouter Kloek and Norbert Middelkoop. “Gerrit 
Berckheyde en de Gouden Bocht in de Herengracht.” 
Amstelodamum 99 (2012): 17-33. 

Knolle Online 

P. Knolle. “Pronk, Cornelis.” In Grove Art 

Online. Oxford University Press, accessed 3 Mar. 2015, 


Koenhein 1999 

A. J. M. Koenhein .Johan Wolfertvan Brederode, 
1599-1655: Een Hollands edelman tussen Nassau en Oranje. 
Vianen and Zutphen, 1999. 

Koenhein 2001 

A. J. M. Koenhein. “Salomon van Ruysdael en 
Vianen.” In het land van Brederode, Jaarboek 2001, 57-62. 

Korteweg and Vels Heijn 1992 

Anton Korteweg, ed., with Annemaire Vels Heijn. 

Een engelzingend achtereenpilaar: Gedichten over 
schilderijen. The Hague, 1992. 


August Kracht. “Ein grower Kunstfreund aus 
westfalishem Geschlecht: Graf Moritz von Brabeck 
und seine Gemaldegalerie zu Soder .” Der Marker: 
LandeskundlicheZeitschriftfiir den Bereich der ehem. 
GrafschaftMark und dem Markischen Kreis 21, no. 4 
(July-Aug. 1978): 89-95. 


De Lairesse 1738 (1712) 

Gerard de Lairesse. The Art of Painting, in all its 
branches, methodically demonstrated by discourses and 
plates, and exemplified by remarks on the paintings of the 
best masters; and their Perfections and Oversights laid open 
By Gerard de Lairesse. Translated by John Frederick 
Fritsch. London, 1738. Originally published as Groot 
schilderboek, waar in de schilderkonst in al haar deelen 
grondigwerd onderweezen, 00k door redeneenirgen en 
printverbeeldingen verklaard: metvoorbeelden uyt de beste 
konst-stukken der oude en nieuwe puyk-skilderen bevestigd. 

... Amsterdam, 1712. 

Lammers 1979 

Walther Lammers. Vestigia mediaevalia: Ausgew. 
Aufsatzezur mittelalterl. Historiographie, Landes- u. 
Kirchengeschichte. Wiesbaden, 1979. 

Lammertse and Szanto 2006-7 
Friso Lammertse and Mickael Szanto. “Willem Kalf, 
een biographie.” In Rotterdam-Aachen 2006-7, 
pp. 8-23. 

Laren 1959 

Kunstschatten, twee Nederlandse collecties schilderijen uit 
de vijftiende tot en met de zeventiende eeuw en een collectie 
oud aardewerk. Exh. cat.. Singer Museum, Laren 
(Gooi), 14 June-16 Aug. 1959. Laren, 1959. 

Larsen 1962 

Erik Larsen. Frans Post: Interprete duBresil. Amsterdam 
and Rio de Janeiro, 1962. 

Larsen 1982 

Erik Larsen. “Supplements to the Catalogue of Frans 
Post.” Burlington Magazine 124, no. 951 (June 1982): 
339 - 43 - 

Laurentius and Niemeijer 1980 

Th. Laurentius and J. W. Niemeijer. Cornelis Ploos van 
Amstel, 1726-1798, Kunstverzamelaar enprentuitgever. 
Assen, 1980. 

Lawrence 1991 

Cynthia Miller Lawrence. Gerrit Adriaensz. Berckheyde 
(1638-98): Haarlem Cityscape Painter. Doornspijk, 1991. 

Lawrence 1992 

Cynthia Lawrence. “Hendrick de Keyser’s 
Heemskerk Monument: The Origins of the Cult and 
Iconography of Dutch Naval Heroes.” Simiolus 21, no. 
4(1992): 265-94. 

Leiden 1945 

Tentoonstellingvan schilderijen die tijdens den oorlogin het 
museum “DeLakenhal”bewaardzijn. Exh. cat., Stedelijk 
Museum “De Lakenhal,” Leiden, Aug. 1945. Leiden, 
1945 . 

Leiden 1950-51 

40 Winterlandschappen. Exh. cat., Stedelijk Museum 
de Lakenhal, Leiden, 22 Dec. 1950-11 Feb. 1951. 
Organized by the Leids Academisch Kunstcentrum 
with the Stedelijk Museum de Lakenhal. Leiden, 


Leiden 1965 

i7de eeuwse meesters uitNederlandsparticulier bezit: Oud 
meesters uit de collectie van de Heer en Mevrouw Sidney], 
van den Bergh-Bendix. Exh. cat., Stedelijk Museum de 
Lakenhal, Leiden, 5-30 Aug. 1965. Leiden, 1965. 

Leiden 1996-97 

Christiaan Vogelaar with Edwin Buijsen et al .Jan van 
Goyen. Exh. cat., Stedelijk Museum de Lakenhal, 
Leiden, 12 Oct. 1996-13 Jan. 1997. Leiden, 1996. 

Leymarie 1956 

Jean Leymarie. Dutch Paintings. Translated by Stuart 
Gilbert. Geneva and New York, 1956. 

Liedtke 1971 

Walter A. Liedtke. “Saenredam’s Space.” Oud Holland 
86 (1971): 116-41. 


Walter A. Liedtke. “The New Church in Haarlem 
Series: Saenredam’s Sketching Style in Relation to 
Perspective.” Simiolus 8 (1975-76): 145-66. 

Liedtke 1982 

Walter A. Liedtke. Architectural Painting in Delft: Gerard 
Houckgeest, Hendrick van Vliet, Emanuel de Witte. Aetas 
aurea 3. Doornspijk, 1982. 

Liedtke 2000 

Walter A. Liedtke. A View of Delft: Vermeer and His 
Contemporaries. Zwolle, 2000. 

Liedtke 2007 

Walter A. Liedtke. Dutch Paintings in the Metropolitan 
Museum of Art. 2 vols. New York, 2007. 

Lokin 2016 

Danielle Lokin. “Balthasar van der Ast, eine 
Lebensbeschreibung.” In Die Stilleben des Balthasar 
van der Ast (1593/94-1657), ed. Sarvenaz Ayooghi, Sylvia 
Bohmer, and Timo Triimper, pp. 21-43. Petersberg, 

London 1819 

Annual exhibition. Exh. cat., British Institution for 
Promoting the Fine Arts in the United Kingdom, 
London, 1819. London, 1819. 

London 1836 

Annual exhibition. Exh. cat., British Institution for 
Promoting the Fine Arts in the United Kingdom, 
London, 1836. London, 1836. 

London 1856 

Annual exhibition. Exh. cat., British Institution for 
Promoting the Fine Arts in the United Kingdom, 
London, 1856. London, 1856. 

London 1867 

Annual exhibition. Exh. cat., British Institution for 
Promoting the Fine Arts in the United Kingdom, 
London, 1867. London, 1867. 

London 1875 

Exhibition of Works by the Old Masters, and by Deceased 
Masters of the British School ... Winter Exhibition, Sixth 
Year. Exh. cat.. Royal Academy of Arts, London, 1875. 
London, 1875. 

London 1876 

Exhibition of Works by the Old Masters, and by Deceased 
Masters of the British School ... Winter Exhibition, Seventh 
Year. Exh. cat.. Royal Academy of Arts, London, 1876. 
London, 1876. 


London 1890 

Exhibition of Works by the Old Masters, and by Deceased 
Masters of the British School... Winter Exhibition, 
Twenty-FirstYear. Exh. cat.. Royal Academy of Arts, 
London, 1890. London, 1890. 

London 1903 

Exhibition of English Pictures [and] Catalogue of a 
Collection ofSelected Pictures by Dutch Artists of the 
Seventeenth Century. Exh. cat., Lawrie and Company, 
London, 1903. London, 1903. 

London 1911 

Roger E. Fry and Maurice W. Brockwell, eds. 
Exhibition of Old Masters in Aid of the National 
Art-Collections Fund. Exh. cat., London, Grafton 
Galleries, 4 Oct-28 Dec. 1911. London, 1911. London, 

London 1915 

A Loan Exhibition [in Aid of the British Red Cross Society] of 
a Well-Known Private Collection of Pictures of the Dutch 
and Early English Schools... Formed during the Last30 
Years at the Galleries ofThos. Agnew & Sons. Exh. cat., 
Thos. Agnew & Sons, London, June 1915. London, 


London 1927 

William Patterson. The Entire Collection of the Late W. A. 
Coats, Esq. Exh. cat.. Galleries of the Royal Society of 
British Artists, London, Jan. 1927. London, 1927. 

London 1929 

Hans Schneider and W. G. Constable. Exhibition of 
Dutch Art, 1450-1900. Exh. cat.. Royal Academy of Arts, 
London, 4 Jam-9 Mar. 1929. London, 1929. 

London 1948-49 

Catalogue ofan Exhibition of Pictures by Richard Wilson 
and His Circle. Exh. cat., Tate Gallery, London, 17 Nov. 
1948-9 Jan. 1949. London, 1949. 

London 1955 

Autumn Exhibition of Dutch and Flemish Masters. Exh. 
cat., Alfred Brod, London, 13 Oct-19 Nov. 1955. 
London, 1955. 

London 1965 

1965 Spring Exhibition of Flemish, Dutch and Italian Old 
Masters. Exh. cat., Leonard Koetser Ltd., London. 
London, 1965. 

London 1991 

Laurie B. Harwood. Reflections on Italy: Adam Pynacker. 
Exh. cat., Richard L. Feigen and Company, London, 
1991. London, 1991. 

London 1992 

Adam Zamoyski and Andrzej Rottermund. Treasures 
ofa Polish King: Stanislaus Augustus as Patron and 
Collector. Exh. cat., Dulwich Picture Gallery, London, 
13 May-26 July 1992. London, 1992. 

London 2001 

Axel Riiger. Vermeer and Painting in Delft. Exh. cat.. 

The National Gallery, London, 20 June-16 Sept. 2001. 
London, 2001. 

Los Angeles 1975 

X: A Decade of Collecting, 1965-1975. Los Angeles County 
Museum of Art. Exh. cat., Los Angeles County 
Museum of Art, 8 Apn-29 June 1975. Los Angeles, 
1975 - 

Los Angeles 1990-91 

As Many Worlds as There Are: 25th Anniversary Gifts. Exh. 
cat., Los Angeles County Museum of Art, 21 Oct. 
1990-6 Jan. 1991. Los Angeles, 1990. 

Los Angeles 1992-93 

John Walsh, Jr., and Cynthia P. Schneider. A Mirror of 
Nature: Dutch Paintings from the Collection of Mr. and Mrs. 
Edward William Carter. Exh. cat., Los Angeles County 
Museum of Art, 22 Oct. 1992-17 Jan. 1993.2nd, 
enlarged edition of Los Angeles-Boston-New York 
1981-82. Los Angeles, 1992. 

Los Angeles 2000 

Earth, Sea and Light: Four Paintings from the Carter 
Collection. Exh. cat., Los Angeles County Museum of 
Art, 9 Sept.-26 Nov. 2000. No exh. cat. 

Los Angeles 2002 

Liesbeth M. Helmus, ed. Pieter Saenredam: The Utrecht 
Work. Paintings and Drawings by the 17th-Century Master 
of Perspective. Catalogue for the exhibition The Sacred 
Spaces of Pieter Saenredam. The J. Paul Getty Museum, 
Los Angeles, 16 Apr.-7 July 2002.2nd edition of 
Utrecht 2000-2001. Los Angeles, 2002. 

Los Angeles-Boston-New York 1981-82 
John Walsh, Jr., and Cynthia P. Schneider. A Mirror of 
Nature: Dutch Paintings from the Collection of Mr. and Mrs. 
Edward William Carter. Exh. cat., Los Angeles County 
Museum of Art, 13 Oct. 1981-3 Jan. 1982; Museum of 
Fine Arts, Boston, 20 Jam-14 Mar. 1982; The Metro¬ 
politan Museum of Art, New York, 7 Apr.-2o June 
1982. Los Angeles, 1981. 

Los Angeles-Philadelphia-London 2005-6 

Seymour Slive. Jacob van Ruisdael: Master ofLandscape. 
Exh. cat., Los Angeles County Museum of Art, 

26 June-18 Sept. 2005; Philadelphia Museum of Art, 
23 Oct. 2005-5 Feb. 2006; Royal Academy of Arts, 
London, 25 Feb-4 June 2006. London and New 
Haven, 2005. 

Lunsingh Scheurleer 1974 

D. F. Lunsingh Scheurleer. Chinese Export Porcelain/ 
Chine de commande. New York, 1974. 

Luxembourg-Liege 1957 

P. N. H. Domela Niewenhuis. Nature mortes 
hollandaises, 1550-1950. Exh. cat., Musee de l’Etat, 
Luxembourg, 16 Feb.-io Mar. 1957; Musee des 
Beaux-Arts, Liege, 16 Man-14 Apr. 1957. Liege, 1957. 


Madrid 1994-95 

Peter C. Sutton with John Laughman. The Golden Age 
of Dutch Landscape Painting/El Siglo de Oro delpaisaje 
holandes. Exh. cat., Fundacion Coleccion Thyssen- 
Bornemisza, Madrid, Oct. 1994-Feb. 1995. Madrid, 

Madrid 2008-9 

Liesbeth M. Helmus and Gerdien Wuestman. 
Saenredam: Lafachada occidental de la Iglesia de Santa 
Maria de Utrecht. Exh. cat., Museo Thyssen- 
Bornemisza, Madrid, 11 Nov. 2008-15 Feb. 2009. 
Madrid, 2008. 

Van Mander 1604 

Karel van Mander. Den Grondt derEdel VrySchilder- 
Const. Haarlem, 1604. Facsimile edition and 
translation with commentary by Hessel Miedema. 

2 vols. Utrecht, 1973. 

Mandle 1979 

Roger Mandle. Review of “Adriaen Coorte, a Unique 
Late Seventeenth Century Dutch Still-Life Painter” 
by L. Bol. Burlington Magazine 121 (May 1979): 326-27. 

Manke 1963 

Ilse Manke. Emanuel de Witte, 1617-1692. Amsterdam, 

Marandel 2004 

J. Patrice Marandel. “Los Angeles County Museum 
of Art: A Gift of Dutch Paintings.” World of Antiques & 
Art 66 (2004). 

[Marandel] 2005 

[J. Patrice Marandel]. “Master of Landscape.” At 
LACMA, Museum Members’Magazine (July-Aug. 2005): 

Marandel and Walsh et al. 2019 
J. Patrice Marandel and Amy Walsh, with additional 
contributions by Ellen Dooley and Arthur K. 
Wheelock, Jr. Gifts of European Art from TheAhmanson 
Foundation. Vol. 3, Dutch Painting, Flemish Painting, 
Spanish Painting and Sculpture, Los Angeles, 2019. 

Marcus-de Groot 2003 

Yvette Marcus-de Groot. Kunsthistorische vrouwen van 
weleer: De eerste generatie in Nederland voor 1921. 
Hilversum, 2003. 

Martin 1935-36 

Wilhelm Martin. De Hollandische schilderkunst in de 
zeventiende eeuw. 2 vols. Amsterdam, 1935-36. 

Meijer 1999 

Fred G. Meijer. “Coorte (Corte), Adriaen.” In Saur 
1992-, vol. 21, pp. 93-94. 

Meyers 2011 

Amy R. W. Meyers, ed., with the assistance of Lisa L. 
Ford. Knowing Nature: Art and Science in Philadelphia, 
1740-1840. New Haven, 2011. 

Michalski 2002 

Sergiusz Michalski. “Rembrandt and the Church 
Interiors of the Delft School.” Artibus & historiae 23, 
no. 46 (2002): 183-93. 

Middelkoop with Reichwein and Van Gent 2008 
Norbert E. Middelkoop, with Gusta Reichwein and 
Judith van Gent. De OudeMeestersvan destad 
Amsterdam: Schilderijen tot 1800. Amsterdams 
Historisch Museum. Amsterdam, 2008. 

Milan 1954 

Luigi Salerno, with introduction by A. B. de Vries. 
Mostra dipittura olandese del seicento. Exh. cat., Palazzo 
Reale, Milan, 25 Feb.-25 Apr. 1954. Milan, 1954. 

Minneapolis-Toledo-Los Angeles 1990-91 

George S. Keyes, ed . Mirror ofEmpire: Dutch Marine Art 
of the Seventeenth Century. Exh. cat., Minneapolis 
Institute of Arts, 23 Sept.-30 Dec. 1990; Toledo 
Museum of Art, 27 Jam-28 Apr. 1991; Los Angeles 
County Museum of Art, 30 May-i Sept. 1991. 
Minneapolis, 1990. 

Mireur 1911-12 (2001) 

Hippolyte Mireur. Dictionnaire des ventes d’artfaites en 
France et a Vetranger pendant lesXVIIIme &XIXme siecles. 
... 7 vols. Paris, 1911-12. Reprint. Saint-Romain-au- 
Mont-d’Or, 2001. 


Mitchell 1973 

Peter Mitchell. European Flower Painters. London, 1973. 
Moes 1911 

E[rnst] W[ilhelm] Moes. “De inventaris van den 
inboedel nagelaten door Dirck Alewijn in 1637.” 
JaarboekderVereenigingAmstelodamum 9 (1911): 31-54. 

Molengraaff-Gerlings ca. 1928 
Cornelia Molengraaff-Gerlings. Johan Maurits van 
Nassau en de korte bloeitijd van Hollandsch-Brazilie, 
1636-1644. The Hague, ca. 1928. 

Montias 1987 

John Michael Montias. “Vermeer’s Clients and 
Patrons.” Art Bulletin 69, no. 1 (Mar. 1987): 68-76. 

Montias 1989 

John Michael Montias. Vermeer and His Milieu: A Web 
of Social History. Princeton, 1989. 

Montias 1990 

John Michael Montias. “The Importance of 
Economic Factors on Style.” Dezeventiende eeuw 6 
(1990): 49 - 57 - 

Montreal 1990 

Frederik J. Duparc and Linda L. Graif. Italian 
Recollections: Dutch Painters of the Golden Age. Exh. cat., 
Montreal Museum of Fine Arts, 8 June-22 July 1990. 
Montreal, 1990. 

Du Mortier 2009-10 

Bianca M. du Mortier. “Aspects of Costume: A 
Showcase of Early 17th-Century Dress.” In 
Amsterdam-Washington 2009-10, pp. 141-63. 

Muchnic 2015 

Suzanne Muchnic. LACMA So Far: Portrait of a Museum 
in the Making. San Marino, CA, 2015. 

Miinster-Baden-Baden 1979-80 
Gerhard Langemeyer and Hans-Albert Peters. 
Stilleben inEuropa. Exh. cat., Westfalisches 
Landesmuseum fur Kunst und Kulturgeschichte 
Munster, 25 Nov. 1979-24 Feb. 1980; Staatliche 
Kunsthalle Baden-Baden, 15 Mar-15 June 1980. 
Munster, 1979. 

Murray and Groen 1994 

Sarah Murray and Karin Groen. “Four Early Dutch 
Flower Paintings Examined with Reference to 
Crispin de Passe’s ‘Den Blom-Hof.’” Hamilton Kerr 
Institute Bulletin, no. 2 (1994): 7-20. 


Naumann 1982 

Otto Naumann. “Quiet Beauty: Dutch Paintings 
from the Carter Collection.” Tableau 4, no. 5 (1982): 
471 - 75 . 

Newmeister 2010 

Mirjam Newmeister. Hollandsche Gemalde in Stadel 
Museum, 1550-1800. Vol. 3, Kiinstler geboren nach 1630. 
Frankurt am Main, 2010. 

New York 1925 

Loan Exhibition of Dutch Masters of the Seventeenth 
Century. Knoedler Galleries, New York, 16-28 Nov. 
1925. New York, 1925. 

New York 1939 

George Henry McCall, William R. Valentiner, ed. 
Masterpieces of Art: Catalogue of European Paintings and 
Sculpture from 1300-1800. Exh. cat.. New York’s World 
Fair, New York, May-Oct. 1939. New York, 1939. 

New York 1968 

Exhibition of Dutch and Flemish Paintings. Exh. cat., 

H. Schickman Gallery, New York, Nov. 1968. New 
York, 1968. 

New York 1974-75 

Penelope Hunter and Gerald G. Stiebel. The Grand 
Gallery at the Metropolitan Museum of Art: Sixth 
International Exhibition Presented by C. I. N. O.A., La 
Confederation internationale des negociants en oeuvres 
d’art/The International Confederation of Dealers in Works 
of Art. Exh. cat.. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 
New York, 19 Oct. 1974-5 Jan. 1975. New York, 1975. 

New York 1985 

Ann Sutherland Harris with Marcel Roethlisberger 
and Kahren Hellerstedt. Landscape Painting in Rome, 
1595-1675. Exh. cat., Richard L. Feigen & Co., New 
York, 30 Jan-23 Mar. 1985. New York, 1985. 

New York 1985a 

Walter A. Liedtke. The Golden Ambiance: Dutch 
Landscape Painting in the Seventeenth Century. Exh. cat., 
Minskoff Cultural Center, New York, 17-26 May 
1985. New York, 1985. 

New York-London 2001 

Walter A. Liedtke with Michiel C. Plomp, Axel Riiger, 
et al. Vermeer and the Delft School. Exh. cat.. The 
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 8 Man- 
27 May 2001; The National Gallery, London, 

20 June-16 Sept. 2001. New York, 2001. 

New York-Toledo-Toronto 1954-55 

Dutch Painting, the Golden Age: An Exhibition of Dutch 
Pictures of the Seventeenth Century. ... Exh. cat.. The 
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 25 Oct.- 
9 Dec. 1954; Toledo Museum of Art, Ohio, 2 Jan- 
13 Feb. 1955; Art Gallery of Toronto, ON, 18 Feb.- 
7 Mar. 1955. Haarlem, 1954. 

Niemeyer 1959 

J. W. Niemeyer. “Het topografisch element in enkele 
riviergezichten van Salomon van Ruysdael nader 
beschouwd.” Oud Holland 74 (1959): 51-56. 

Nieuwenhuizen 1974 

Kees van Nieuwenhuizen, ed. De vroegstefotos van 
Amsterdam. Amsterdam, 1974. 

Nijstad 1990 

Saam Nijstad. Van antiquair tot kunsthandelaar. 
Abcoude, 1990. 

Noach 1939 

Arnoldus Noach. De Oude Kerk te Amsterdam: Biografie 
van eengebouw. Amsterdam, 1939. 

North 1979 

J. D. North. “Georg Markgraf, an Astronomer in the 
New World.” In Van den Boogaart, Hoetink, and 
Whitehead 1979, pp. 394-423. 

Niirnberg 1909 

Katalog der Gemalde-Sammlung des Germanischen 
Nationalmuseums in Niirnberg. 4th ed. Niirnberg, 1909. 


Oxford 1950 

Ashmolean Museum. Catalogue of the Collection of 
Dutch and Flemish Still-Life Pictures Bequested by Daisy 
Linda Ward. Introduction by J. G. van Gelder. Oxford, 

Oxford 2003 

Fred G. Meijer. The Collection of Dutch andFlemish 
Still-Life Paintings Bequeathed by Daisy Linda Ward: 
Catalogue of the Collection ofPaintings. Ashmolean 
Museum. Oxford and Zwolle, 2003. 

Paintings Looted from Holland 1946-48 
Paintings Looted from Holland Returned through the 
Efforts of the United States Armed Forces. Exh. cat., Ann 
Arbor, Baltimore, Buffalo, Kansas City, New Haven, 
New York City, Newark, Northampton, Philadelphia, 
Princeton, San Francisco, Washington, DC, 
Williamstown, MA, Worcester, 7 Dec. 1946-1 Jan. 
1948. New York, 1946. 


Papavero and Teixeira 2000 
Nelson Papavero and Dante Martins Teixeira. 
CuthbertPudsey: Didrio de uma estada no Brasil. Vol. 3 of 
Cristina Ferrao and Jose Monteiro Soares, Brasil 
Holandes. Petropolis, Brazil, 2000. 

Paris 1936-37 

Charles Sterling. Rubens et son temps. Exh. cat., Musee 
de l’Orangerie, Paris, Nov. 1936-Jan. 1937. Paris, 1936. 

Paris 1950 

Chefs d’oeuvre des collectionsparisiens. Exh. cat., Musee 
Carnavalet, Paris, Nov.-Dee. 1950. Paris, 1950. 

Paris 1950-51 

Le pay sage hollandaisauXVIIesiecle. Exh. cat., 
Orangerie des Tuileries, Paris, 25 Nov. 1950-18 Feb. 
1951. Paris, 1950. 

Paris 1952 

Charles Sterling. La nature morte de Vantiquite d nos 
jours. Exh. cat., Musee de l’Orangerie, Paris, 
Apr.-June 1952. Paris, 1952. 

Paris i960 

Anne Wertheimer. La nature morte et son inspiration.... 
Exh. cat., Galerie Andre Weil, Paris, 19 Apr.-i6 May 
i960. Paris, i960. 

Paris 1972 

I. Q. van Regteren Altena. Cent dessins du Musee Teyler 
Haarlem: Le exposition du Cabinet des dessins. Exh. 
cat., Musee du Louvre, Paris, 19 Oct-31 Dec. 1972. 
Paris, 1972. 


Parival 1728 (1651) 

Jean-Nicolas de Parival. Les delices de la Hollande: 
Contenant une description exacte dupais, des moeurs & des 
coutumes des habitans. Avec un abrege historique depuis 
1 ’etablissement de la Republiquejusqu’au de Id de la Paix 
d’Utrecht. 2 vols. Leiden, 1651. Revised edition. 
Amsterdam, 1728. 

Van de Passe 1614 

Crispijn van de Passe. HortusFloridus. Utrecht, 1614. 
Paviere 1962-64 

Sydney H. Paviere. A Dictionary of Flower, Fruit, and 
Still Life Painters. 3 vols. Leigh-on-Sea, 1962-64. 


Anna Pavord. The Tulip. New York and London, 1999. 
Peeters 1991 

Jan Peeters. “Een onbekende tekening van Gerrit 
Berckheyde in de atlas Van Eck.” Bulletin Koninklijk 
OudheidkundigGenootschap (1991): 82-91. 

Van Pelt 1981 

Robert van Pelt. “Man and Cosmos in Huygens’ 
Hofwijck.” Art History 4, no. 2 (June 1981): 150-73. 

Pennisi 2007 

Meghan Siobhan Wilson Pennisi. “The Flower 
Still-Life Painting of Ambrosius Bosschaert the 
Elder in Middelburg, ca. 1600-20.” PhD diss.. 
Northwestern University, 2007. 

Peronnet and Fredericksen 1998 
Benjamin Peronnet and Burton B. Fredericksen, eds. 
Repertoire des tableaux en France au XIXe siecle. Los 
Angeles, 1998. 

Philadelphia 1963 

Henry Clifford. A World of Flowers: Paintings and Prints. 
Exh. cat., Philadelphia Museum of Art, 2 May- 
9 June 1963, Philadelphia Museum Bulletin 58, no. 277 
(Spring 1963). 

Pietrangeli 1961 

Carlo Pietrangeli. VillaPaolina. Rome, 1961. 

Pijl 2006-7 

Luuk Pijl. “The Paintings of Nicolaes Berchem: 
Influences and Development.” In Haarlem-Ziirich- 
Schwerin 2006-7, pp- 73-93. 

Plietzsch i960 

Eduard Plietzsch. Hollandsche undflamischeMaler des 
XVII]ahrh. Leipzig, i960. 

Pliny 1961-68 

Pliny, Natural History with an English Translation in Ten 
Volumes. 10 vols. Translated by H. Rackham. 
Cambridge, MA, and London, 1961-68. 

Plomp 1997 

Michiel C. Plomp. DutchDrawingsin the TeylerMuseum. 
Vol. 2. Haarlem, Ghent, and Doornspijk, 1997. 

Ploos van Amstel i82i-[27?] 

Cornelis Ploos van Amstel. Collection limitations de 
dessins d’apres les principaux maitres hollandais et 
flamandsjcommencee par Ploos van Amstel, continuee et 
portee au nombre de cent morceaux, avec des renseignements 
historiques et detailles sur ces maitres et sur leurs ouvrages; 
precedes d’un discours sur Vetat ancien et moderne des arts 
dans les PaysBas. Par C.Jos. Amsterdam and London, 


Priem 1997 

Ruud Priem. “The 'most excellent collection’ of 
Lucretia Johanna van Winter: The Years 1809-22. 
Catalogue of the Works Purchased. Appendices.” 
Simiolus, Netherlands Quarterly for the History of Art 25, 
no. 2/3 (1997): 103-234. 


Rademaker 1725 

Abraham Rademaker. Kabinetvan Nederlandsche 
outheden engezichten. ... 2 vols. in 1. Amsterdam, 1725. 

Ramakers 2002 

Bart Ramakers. “Kinderen van Saturnus: Afstand en 
nabijheid in de beedende kunst en het toneel van de 
zestiende eeuw.” In De Jong, Ramakers, Roodenburg 
et al. 2002, pp. 13-51. 

Ramdohr 1792 

Friedrich Wilhelm Basilius von Ramdohr. Beschrei- 
bung der Gemalde-Galerie des Freiherrn von Brabek zu 
Hildesheim _Hanover, 1792. 

Von Reber and Bayersdorfer 1889-1900 
Franz von Reber and Adolph Bayersdorfer, eds. 
KlassischerBilderschatz. 12 vols. Munich, 1889-1900. 

Reithmeier 2010 

Irene Reithmeier. Johann Konrad von Gemmingen: 
Furstbischof von Eichstatt (1593/95-1612). PhD diss., 
Universitat Miinchen, 2009. Regensburg, 2010. 

Rickey 1981 

Carrie Rickey. “Art Reviews: In Dutch.” Art & Auction 
4, no. 4 (Dec. 1981): 26. 

Rinaldi 1989 

Maura Rinaldi. Kraak Porcelain: A Moment in the History 
of Trade. London, 1989. 

Rio de Janeiro 1942 

Exposi^do Frans Post. Exh. cat., Museu Nacional de 
Belas Artes, Rio de Janeiro, 1942. Rio de Janeiro, 1942. 

M. Robinson 1973-74 

Michael S. Robinson. Van de Velde Drawings: A 
Catalogue of Drawings in the National Maritime Museum 
Made by the Elder and the Younger Willem van de Velde. 

2 vols. Cambridge, 1973-74. 

M. Robinson 1990 

Michael S. Robinson. Van de Velde: A Catalogue of the 
Paintings of the Elder and Younger Willem van de Velde. 

2 vols. Greenwich, 1990. 

Roland Michel et al. 2002 
Marianne Roland Michel, Peter C. Sutton, Carolyn 
Rose Rebbert, and Cynthia A. Drayton. The Floral Art 
ofPierre-JosephRedoute. London, 2002. 

Rome 1954 

Luigi Salerno. Mostra dipittura olandese del seicento. 
Exh. cat., Palazzo delle Esposizione, Rome, 4 Jan- 
14 Feb. 1954. Milan, 1954. 

J. Rosenberg 1928 

Jacob Rosenberg .Jacob Ruisdael. Berlin, 1928. 

J. Rosenberg, Slive, and Ter Kuile 1966 
Jacob Rosenberg, Seymour Slive, and E. H. ter Kuile. 
Dutch Art and Architecture, 1600-1800. Harmondsworth, 

Rothlisberger 1961 

Marcel Rothlisberger. Claude Lorrain: The Paintings. 

2 vols. New Haven, 1961. 

Rotterdam 1938 

D. Hannema. Meesterwerken uitvier eeuwen, 1400-1800: 
Tentoonstellingvan schilderijen en teekeningen uit 
particuliere verzamelingen in Nederland bijeengebracht 
gedurende de veertigjarige regeering van H. M. Koningin 
Wilhelmina. Exh. cat.. Museum Boijmans Van 
Beuningen, Rotterdam, 25 June-15 Oct. 1938. 
Rotterdam, 1938. 

Rotterdam 1939-40 

Tentoonstellingvan schilderijen, beeldhouwwerken en 
teekeningen uit particuliere verzamelingen in Nederland. 
Exh. cat.. Museum Boymans [Museum Boijmans 
Van Beuningen], Rotterdam, 23 Dec. 1939-29 Jan. 
1940. Rotterdam, 1940. 

Rotterdam 1945-46 

Het Nederlandsche zee- en riviergezichtin deXVIIde eeuw. 
Exh. cat.. Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, 
Rotterdam, 1945-46. 

Rotterdam 1951 

Tentoonstellingvan oude schilderijen collectie C. V. 
Kunsthandel P. deBoer. Exh. cat., Kunstkring, 
Rotterdam, 1951. Rotterdam, 1951. 

Rotterdam 1955 

Kunstschatten uitNederlandse verzamelingen. Exh. cat.. 
Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, Rotterdam, 

19 June-25 Sept. 1955. Rotterdam, 1955. 

Rotterdam 1991 

Jeroen Giltaij and Guido Jansen. Perspectiven: 
Saenredam en de architechtuurschilders van de l/e eeuw/ 
Perspectives: Saenredam and the Architectural Painters of 
the 17th Century. Exh. cat.. Museum Boijmans Van 
Beuningen, Rotterdam, 15 Sept-24 Nov. 1991. 
Rotterdam, 1991. 

Rotterdam-Aachen 2006-7 
Peter van den Brink, Fred G. Meijer, and Sylvia 
Bohmer, eds. Gemaltes Licht: Die Stilleben von Willem 
Kalf, 1619-1693. Exh. cat.. Museum Boijmans Van 
Beuningen, Rotterdam, 25 Nov. 2006-18 Feb. 2007; 
Suermondt-Lud wig-Museum, Aachen, 8 Mar.- 

3 June 2007. Munich, 2007. 

Rotterdam-Berlin 1996-97 

Jeroen Giltaij and Jan Kelch. Praise of Ships and the Sea: 
The Dutch Marine Painters ofthe 17th Century. Exh. cat.. 
Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, Rotterdam, 

21 Dec. 1996-23 Feb. 1997; Staatliche Museen zu 
Berlin, Gemaldegalerie im Bodemuseum, 21 Man- 
25 May 1997. Rotterdam, 1996. 


Russell 1975 

Margarita Russell Jaw van de Cappelle, 1624/6-1679. 
Leigh-on-Sea, 1975. 

Russell 1982 

Russell, John. "Gallery View: Spotlight on 
17th-Century Dutch Painters, Boston.” New York 
Times, 7 Feb. 1982, A29. 

Russell 1982a 

Russell, John. "Met Opens Jewel Box of Old Masters.” 
New York Times, 16 Apr. 1982, Ci. 

Russell 1983 

Margarita Russell. Visions of the Sea: Hendrick C. Vroom 
and the Origins of Dutch Marine Tainting. Leiden, 1983. 

Russell 1990 

Russell, John. “Art View: Gifts That Can Change the 
Climate of a Museum.” New York Times, 3 June 1990, 

Ruurs 1983 

Rob Ruurs. "'Even if it is not architecture’: 
Perspective Drawings by Simon de Vlieger and 
Willem van de Velde the Younger.” Simiolus 13, no. 3/4 
(1983): 189-200. 

Ruurs 1987 

Rob Ruurs. Saenredam: The Art of Perspective. 
Amsterdam and Philadelphia, 1987. 


Salem-San Francisco-Houston 2011-12 
Frederik J. Duparc, with Femke Diercks, Reinier 
Baarsen, and Loek van Aalst. Golden: Dutch and 
Flemish Masters from the Rose-Marie and Eijk van Otterloo 
Collection. Exh. cat., Peabody Essex Museum, Salem, 
MA, 26 Feb.-i9 June 2011; Fine Arts Museums of San 
Francisco, 9 July-2 Oct. 2011; Museum of Fine Arts, 
Houston, 13 Nov. 2011-12 Feb. 2012. Salem, MA, 2011. 

San Francisco-Baltimore-London 1997-98 
Joaneath Spicer, ed., with Lynn Federle Orr. Masters 
of Light: Dutch Painters in Utrecht during the Golden Age. 
Exh. cat.. Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, 

13 Sept.-30 Nov. 1997; Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore, 
11 Jan-5 Apr. 1998; The National Gallery, London, 

6 May-2 Aug. 1998. San Francisco, 1997. 

San Francisco-Toledo-Boston 1966-67 

The Age of Rembrandt: An Exhibition ofPaintingsofthe 
Seventeenth Century. Exh. cat.. Fine Arts Museums of 
San Francisco, California Palace of the Legion of 
Honor; Toledo Museum of Art; Museum of Fine Arts, 
Boston. New York, 1966. 

San Marino 1995 

Edward J. Nygren. In Celebration of Collecting: Selected 
Works from the Collections ofFriends of the Huntington. 
Exh. cat., Huntington Library, San Marino, CA, 

4 June-27 Aug. 1995. San Marino, CA, 1995. 

Sandrart 1675-79 (1925) 

Joachim von Sandrart. Teutsche Academie deredlen Bau-, 
Bild- undMahlerey-Kiinste. 2 vols. Nuremberg and 
Frankfurt am Main, 1675-79. Edited by A. R. Peltzer. 
4 vols. Munich, 1925. 

Sawri 992 - 

Saur Allgemeines Kiinstler-Lexikon: Die Bildenden Kiinstler 
allerZeiten und Volker. 85 vols. to date. Edited by 
Gunter Meissner. Leipzig and Munich, 1992-. 


Eckhard Schaar. "Studien zu Nicolaes Berchem.” 
PhD diss., Universitat zu Koln, 1958. 


Eckhard Schaar. NiederlandischeHandzeichnungen, 
1500-1800, aus dem Kunstmuseum Diisseldorf Exh. cat., 
Stadtische Kunsthalle, Diisseldorf, 10 Mar-5 May 
1968. Diisseldorf, 1968. 

Schama 1987 

Simon Schama. The Embarrassment of Riches: An 
Interpretation of Dutch Culture in the Golden Age. New 
York, 1987. 

Schapelhouman 2009-10 

Marijn Schapelhouman. "The Drawings: Reflections 
on an Oeuvre.” In Amsterdam-Washington 2009-10, 

pp. 85-117- 

Schiedam 1952-53 

Schilderijen der Nederlandse- en Franse school uit de 
verzamelingvanB. de Geus van den Heuvel, Amsterdam. 
2nd part. Exh. cat., Stedelijk Museum Schiedam, 

20 Dec. 1952-18 Jan. 1953. Schiedam, 1952. 

Schiedam 1997 

K. J. P. Jeurgens and D. A. Wind. Compact disk 
accompanying exhibition De Gouden Eeuw van 
Schiedam, 1698-1795. Stedelijk Museum Schiedam, 
1997. Schiedam, 1997. 

Schoemaker 2007 

Laurens Schoemaker with the assistance of Henk 
Deys. Tegen de helling van de Heuvelrug: Rhenen in oude 
tekeningen, 1600-1900. Historische Heuvelrug Reeks 
13. Utrecht, 2007. 

Scholten 2003 

Frits Scholten. Sumptuous Memories: Studies in 
Seventeenth-Century Dutch Tomb Sculpture. Studies in 
Netherlandish Art and Cultural History, vol. 5. 
Zwolle, 2003. 

Schulz 2002 

Wolfgang Schulz. Aertvan derNeer. Translated by 
Kristin Lohse Belkin. Aetas aurea 18. Doornspijk, 

Schwartz 1992 

Stuart B. Schwartz. Slaves, Peasants and Rebels: 
Reconsidering Brazilian Slavery, Blacks in the New World. 
Chicago, 1992. 

Schwartz and Bok 1989 

Gary Schwartz and Marten Jan Bok. Pieter Saenredam: 
The Painter and His Time. Complete edition. New York, 

B. Schwarz 2004 

Birgit Schwarz. Hitlers Museum: Die Fotoalben 
Gemaldegalerie Linz. Dokumente zum Fuhrermuseum. 
Vienna, 2004. 

H. Schwarz 1966 

Heinrich Schwarz. "Vermeer and the Camera 
Obscura .” Pantheon 24 (1966): 170-80. 

Sedelmeyer 1898 

Charles Sedelmeyer. Illustrated Catalogue of 300 
Paintings by Old Masters of the Dutch, Flemish, Italian, 
French, and English Schools, Being Some of the Principal 
Pictures Which Have at Various Times Formed Part of the 
Sedelmeyer Gallery. Paris, 1898. 

Seelig 2006 

Gero Seelig. “The Reception of Berchem’s Painting 
in Eighteenth-Century France.” In Haarlem-Ziirich- 
Schwerin 2006-7, PP- 59-69. 

Segal 1984 

Sam Segal. "Still-life Painting in Middelburg.” In 
Amsterdam 1984, pp. 25-41. 

Segal 1990 

Sam Segal. Flowers and Nature: Netherlandish Flower 
Painting ofFour Centuries. Amstelveen, 1990. 

Sellink 2007 

Manfred Sellink. Bruegel: The Complete Paintings, 
Drawings and Prints. Ghent and New York, 2007. 

Shore 1980 

Leslie Shore, ed. Small Paintings of the Masters: 
Masterpieces Reproduced in Actual Size. 3 vols. Redding, 
CT, 1980. 

Slive 1987 

Seymour Slive. "Dutch Pictures in the Collection of 
Cardinal Silvio Valenti Gonzaga (1690-1756).” 
Simiolus 17, no. 2/3 (1987): 169-90. 

Slive 1995 

Seymour Slive. Dutch Painting, 1600-1800. Revised and 
expanded sections devoted to painting in Rosenberg, 
Slive, and Ter Kuile 1966. New Haven, 1995. 

Slive 2001 

Seymour Slive .Jacob van Ruisdael: A Complete Catalogue 
of His Paintings, Drawings, andEtchings. New Haven, 

Sluijter 1999 (2009) 

Eric Jan Sluijter. "Over Brabantse vodden, 
economische concurrence, artistieke wedijver en de 
groei van de markt voor schilderijen in de eerste 
decennia van de zeventiende eeuw.” In Kunstvoorde 
markt/Art for the Market, ed. R. Falkenburg, J. de Jong, 
D. Meijers et al., pp. 112-43. Nederlands kunsthistorisch 
jaarboek 1999, vol. 50. Zwolle, 2000. English 
translation, "On Brabant Rubbish, Economic 
Competition, Artistic Rivalry, and the Growth of the 
Market for Paintings in the First Decades of the 
Seventeenth Century Journal of Historians of 
Netherlandish Art 1, no. 2 (2009), 

Sluijter 2013 

Eric Jan Sluijter. "'Dien grooten Raphel in het 
zeeschilderen!’: Over de waardering voor Jan 
Porcellis’ sobere kunst door eigentijdse kenners.” In 
Liber Amicorum Marijke deKinkelder: Collegial bijdragen 
over landschappen, marines en architectuur, ed. Charles 
Dumas, Jan Kosten, Eric Jan Sluijter, and Nicolette C. 
Sluijter-Seijffert, pp. 343-58. The Hague, 2013. 


Smith 1829-42 

John Smith. A Catalogue Raisonne of the Works of the 
Most Eminent Dutch, Flemish and French Painters. 9 vols. 
London, 1829-42. 

R. Smith 1938 

Robert C. Smith, Jr. “The Brazilian Landscapes of 
Frans Post .” Art Quarterly 1 (1938): 238-67. 

Sousa-Leao 1937 

Joaquim de Sousa-Leao. Frans Post, seus quadros 
brasileiros. Rio de Janeiro, 1937. 

Sousa-Leao 1948 

Joaquim de Sousa-Leao. Frans Post. Rio de Janeiro, 

Sousa-Leao 1973 

Joaquim de Sousa-Leao. Frans Post, 1612-1680. 
Amsterdam, 1973. 

Souto Maior 1919 

Pedro Souto Maior. “A arte Holandesa no Brasil.” 
Revista dolnstituto historico egeogrdfico brasileiro 83 
(1919): 106-33. 

Spliethoff and Hoogsteder 2000 
M. Spliethoff and W. J. Hoogsteder. “Rachel Ruysch: 
Amsterdam’s Pallas and Minerva of the Amsterdam 
IJ: De verstilde bloemenpracht van een beroemd- 
schilderes.” Hoogsteder Journal 7 (2000): 23-27. 

Spriggs 1967 

A. I. Spriggs. “Oriental Porcelain in Western 
Paintings, 1450-1700.” Transactions of the Oriental 
Ceramic Society 36 (1964-66; published 1967): 73-86. 

Sprint 2001 

Marika Sprint. “Pigments and Color Change in the 
Paintings of Aelbert Cuyp.” In Washington-London- 
Amsterdam 2001-2, pp. 64-73. 

Stechow 1938 

Wolfgang Stechow. Salomon van Ruysdael: Fine 
Einfuhrung in seine Kunst, mit kritischem Katalog der 
Gemalde. Berlin, 1938. 

Stechow 1959 

Wolfgang Stechow. “The Early Years of Hobbema.” 
Art Quarterly (Detroit Institute of Arts) 22 (1959): 3-18. 

Stechow 1968 

Wolfgang Stechow. Dutch Landscape Painting of the 
Seventeenth Century. National Gallery of Art, Kress 
Foundation Studies in the History of European Art. 
2nd ed. London and New York, 1968. 

Stechow 1972 

Wolfgang Stechow. “A Church Interior by Emanuel 
de Witte.” Bulletin of the Cleveland Museum of Art 59 
(1972): 228-34. 

Stechow 1975 

Wolfgang Stechow. Salomon van Ruysdael: Fine 
Einfiihrung in seine Kunst mit kritischem Katalog der 
Gemalde. 2nd, enlarged and revised edition. Berlin, 
1975 . 

Sterling 1959 

Charles Sterling. Still Life Painting from Antiquity to the 
Present Time. Revised edition. Paris and New York, 
1959 . 

Van Strien 1993 

C. D. van Strien. British Travellers in Holland during the 
Stuart Period.... Leiden, New York, and Cologne, 1993. 

Van Strien 1998 

Kees [C. D.] van Strien. Touring the Low Countries: 
Accounts of British Travellers, 1660-1720. Amsterdam, 

Van Suchtelen with Van der Ploeg 2001-2 
Ariane van Suchtelen with Peter van der Ploeg. “An 
Introduction.” In The Hague 2001-2, pp. 11-15. 

Sumowski 1983 

Werner Sumowski. Gemalde derRembrandt-Schiilerin 
vierBanden undeinem Supplement-Band. 6 vols. Landau, 

Sutton 1986 

Peter C. Sutton. A Guide to Dutch Art in America. 
Washington, DC, and Grand Rapids, MI, 1986. 

Sutton 1990-91 

Peter C. Sutton. “Recent Patterns of Public and 
Private Collecting of Dutch Art.” In The Hague-San 
Francisco 1990-91, pp. 104-19. 

Sutton 1992 

Peter C. Sutton. Dutch & Flemish Seventeenth-Century 
Paintings: The Harold Samuel Collection. Cambridge, 
New York, London, and Alexandria, VA, 1992. 

Sweerts 1976 (1612) 

Early Floral Engravings. All 110 plates from the 1612 
“Florilegium” by Emanuel Sweerts. Edited by E. F. Bleiler. 
New York, 1976. 


Takayama ca. 1996 

Hiroshi Takayama. “The Castellophiliacs”: A Historical 
Essay on Those Who Loved Architectures on the Paper. 
Tokyo, ca. 1996. 

Tauch 1991 

M. Tauch. “Perspektives.” Die Weltkunst6i (1991): 


Taylor 1995 

Paul Taylor. Dutch Flower Painting, 1600-1720. New 
Haven, 1995. 

Taylor 2008 

Paul Taylor. “Boekbespreking/Book Review: De 
verleidingvan Flora/The Temptations ofFlora:Jan van 
Huy sum, 1682-1749.” Oud Holland 121 (2008): 256-62. 

Tel Aviv 1959 

Holland’s Golden Age: Paintings, Drawings, Silver of the 
XVII Century, Lent by Dutch Museums and Private 
Collectors. Exh. cat., Tel Aviv Museum, 18 Feb-7 Apr. 
1959. Tel Aviv Museum, 1959. 

Terwesten 1770 (1976) 

Pieter Terwesten, ed. Catalogus of naamlystvan 
schilderyen ... Prins van Orange en Nassau. Vol. 3, 
1752-1758. The Hague, 1770. Reprint. Soest, 1976. 

Van Thiel 1968 

P. J. J. van Thiel. “'Philips Koninck, Vergezicht met 
hutten aan de weg.’” OpenbaarKunstbezit 12, no. 10 

Thieme-Becker 1907-50 

Ulrich Thieme and Felix Becker . AllgemeinesLexikon 
derbildendenKiinstlervon derAntike biszurGegenwart. 
37 vols. Leipzig, 1907-50. 

Trautscholdt 1947 

Eduard Trautscholdt. “Emanuel de Witte.” In 
Thieme-Becker 1907-50, vol. 36 (1947), pp. 121-27. 


Utrecht 1946 

Herwonnen Kunstbezit, Keuze-tentoonstellingvan uit 
Duitschland teruggevoerde Nederlandsche kunstschatten. 
Exh. cat., Centraal Museum, Utrecht, 22 June- 
22 Sept. 1946. Utrecht, 1946. 

Utrecht 1953 

Nederlandse architectuurschilders. Exh. cat., Centraal 
Museum, Utrecht, 28 June-28 Sept. 1953. In Dutch, 
English, and German. Utrecht, 1953. 

Utrecht 1961 

P. T. A. Swillens et al. Catalogue raisonne van de werken 
van Pieter Jansz. Saenredam. Catalogue for the 
exhibition Pieter Jansz. Saenredam: Centraal Museum. 
Centraal Museum, Utrecht, 15 SepL-19 Nov. 1961. 
Utrecht, 1961. Also English edition. Catalogue of the 
Works of Pieter Jansz. Saenredam. Utrecht, 1961. 

Utrecht 1986 

Protestants kerkinterieur, i6de-i9de eeuw. Exh. cat., 
Rijksmuseum Het Catharijneconvent, Utrecht, 1986. 
Utrecht, 1986. 

Utrecht 2000-2001 

Liesbeth M. Helmus, ed. Pieter Saenredam: The Utrecht 
Work. Paintings and Drawings by the 17th-Century Master 
of Perspective. Exh. cat., Centraal Museum, Utrecht, 

4 Nov. 2000-4 Feb. 2001. Utrecht, 2000. 


Valentiner 1922 

Wilhelm Valentiner. “Dutch Loan Exhibition in 
Detroit Museum.” Art News 28 (19 Oct. 1929): 3,6-10, 

Vanhaelen 2005 

Angela Vanhaelen. “Iconoclasm and the Creation of 
Images in Emanuel de Witte’s Old Church in 
Amsterdam.” Art Bulletin 27 (June 2005): 249-64. 

Venema 1986 

Adriaan Venema. Kunsthandel in Nederland, 1940-1945. 
Amsterdam, 1986. 

Vienna-Essen 2002 

Arnout Balis et al. Flamische Stilleben, 1550-1680. Exh. 
cat., Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, 18 Mar- 
21 July 2002; Kultur Stiftung Ruhr Essen, Villa 
Hugel, 1 Sept.-8 Dec. 2002. Lingen and Essen, 2002. 


Vier eeuwen Herengracht 1976 
Via eeuwen Herengracht: geveltekeningen van alle huizen 
aan degracht, twee historische overzichten en de 
beschrijvingvan elkpand metzijn eigenaars en bewoners. 
Amsterdam, 1976. 

Visscher 1614 

Roemer Visscher. Sinnepoppen. Amsterdam, 1614. 
Vondel 1929-34 

Joostvan den Vondel: De Volledigewerken vanjoostvan den 
Vondel. Edited by Hendrick C. Diferee with an 
introduction by Albert Verwey. 7 vols. Utrecht, 

Vorenkamp 1933 

A. R A. Vorenkamp. “Bijdrage tot de geschiedenis 
van het Hollandsch stilleven in de zeventiende 
eeuw.” PhD diss., Leiden University, 1933. 

A. B. de Vries 1959 

A. B. de Vries. “Schilderkunst.” In Sprekend Verleden: 
Wegwijzer voor de verzamelaar van oude kunst en antiek, 
ed. Th. H. Lunsingh Scheurleer, pp. 23-44. 
Amsterdam, 1959. 

A. B. de Vries 1964 

A. B. de Vries. “Old Masters in the Collection of Mr. 
and Mrs. Sidney van den Bergh Apollo 80 (1964): 
352 - 59 . 

A. B. de Vries et al. 1968 

A. B. de Vries with entries by A. Blankert and W. L. 
van de Watering. Verzameling Sidney], van den Bergh. 
Wassenaar, 1968. 

J. de Vries 1974 

Jan de Vries. The Dutch Rural Economy in the Golden Age, 
1500-1/00. New Haven, 1974. 

J. deVries 1981 

Jan de Vries. Barges & Capitalism: Passenger Trans¬ 
portation in the Dutch Economy, 1632-1839. Utrecht, 1981. 

L. de Vries 1984 

Lyckle de Vries .Jan van derHeyden. Amsterdam, 1984. 
L. de Vries 1990 

Lyckle de Vries. Diamantegedenkzuilen en leerzaeme 
voorbeelden: Een besprekingvan Johan van Gools “Nieuwe 
Schouburg.” Groningen, 1990. 

L. de Vries 1992 

Lyckle de Vries. “Saenredam and Seventeenth- 
Century Architectural Painting. Rotterdam.” 
Burlington Magazine 134, no. 1066 (Jan. 1992): 51-54. 

W. de Vries 1990 

Willemien B. de Vries. “The Country Estate 
Immortalized: Constantijn Huygens’ Hofwijck.” In 
Hunt 1990, pp. 81-97. 

Vroom 1945 

N. R. A. Vroom. De schilders van het monochrome 
banketje. Amsterdam, 1945. 

Vroom 1980-99 

N. R. A. Vroom. A Modest Message as Intimated by the 
Painters of the “Monochrome banketje.” Revised PhD 
diss., Universitet Nijmengen, 1945. Translated by 
Peter Gidman. 3 vols. Schiedam, 1980-99. 


Waagen 1838 

Gustav Friedrich Waagen. Works of Art and Artists in 
England. 3 vols. London, 1838. 

Waagen 1854 

Gustav Friedrich Waagen. Treasures of Art in Great 
Britain, Being an Account of the Chief Collections of 
Paintings, Drawings, Sculptures, Illuminated MSS., etc. 

3 vols. London, 1854. 

Waddingham 1964 

Malcolm R. Waddingham. “Andries and Jan Both in 
France and Italy.” Paragone, n.s., 15, no. 171 (Mar. 

1964): 13 - 43 , figs. 15 - 44 . 

J. Wagenaar 1760-67 (1971-72) 

Jan Wagenaar. Amsterdam in zyne opkomst, aanwas, 
geschiedenissen, voorregten, koophandel, gebouwen, 
kerkenstaat, schoolen, scutterye,gilden en regeeringe 
beschreeven. ... 3 vols. Facsimile reprint. Alphen aan 
den Rijn, 1971-72. 

L. Wagenaar 2014 

Lodewijk Wagenaar, ed. Een Toscaanseprins bezoekt 
Nederland: De twee reizenvan Cosimo de'Medici, 
1667-1669. Translated by Bertie Eringa. Amsterdam, 

Wagner 1971 

Helga Wagner .Jan van derHeyden, 1637-1712. 
Amsterdam and Haarlem, 1971. 

Walford 1991 

E. John Walford. Jacob van Ruisdael and the Perception of 
Landscape. New Haven and London, 1991. 

Wallert 1999 

Arie Wallert, ed. Still Lifes: Techniques and Style. The 
Examination of Paintings from theRijksmuseum. 
Amsterdam and Zwolle, 1999. 

Wallert 2006-7 

Arie Wallert. “Refined Technique or Special Tricks? 
Painting Methods of Jan van der Heyden.” In 
Greenwich-Amsterdam 2006-7, PP- 91-103. 

Wallert and Verslype 2009-10 
Arie Wallert and Ige Verslype. “Ice and Sky, Sky and 
Ice: Technical Aspects.” In Amsterdam-Washington 
2009-10, pp. 129-39. 

A. Walsh 1985 

Amy L. Walsh. “Paulus Potter: His Works and Their 
Meaning.” PhD diss., Columbia University, 1985. 

A. Walsh 1996 

Amy L. Walsh. “Kann, Rodolphe [Rudolf].” In Grove 
Art Online. Oxford University Press, https:// 

A. Walsh 2007 

Amy L. Walsh. “Ravishing Prospects.” Review of 
Greenwich-Amsterdam 200 6-7. Apollo 166 (Mar. 
2007): 110-12. 

A. Walsh (forthcoming) 

Amy L. Walsh, with conservation reports by 
Rosalinde Westmoreland. Northern European Paintings 
at the Norton Simon Museum, Pasadena. Pasadena, 

J. Walsh 1971 

John Walsh, Jr. “Jan and Julius Porcellis, Dutch 
Marine Painters.” PhD diss., Columbia University, 

J. Walsh 1974 

John Walsh, Jr. “The Dutch Marine Painters Jan and 
Julius Porcellis—II: Jan’s Maturity and £ de jonge 
Porcellis.’” Burlington Magazine 116 (1974): 734-45. 

J. Walsh 1974a 

John Walsh, Jr. “New Dutch Paintings at the 
Metropolitan Museum.” Apollo 99 (1974): 340-49. 

J. Walsh 1981 

John Walsh, Jr. “‘A Mirror of Nature’: The Carter 
Collection of Dutch Paintings.” Apollo 114 (1981): 

Washington 1995 

Arthur K. Wheelock, Jr. Dutch Paintings of the 
Seventeenth Century. The Collections of the National 
Gallery of Art Systematic Catalogue. Washington, 
DC, 1995. 

Washington 1999 

Arthur K. Wheelock, Jr. From Botany to Bouquets: 
Flowers in Northern Art. Exh. cat.. National Gallery of 
Art, Washington, DC, 31 Jan-31 May 1999. 
Washington, DC, 1999. 

Washington-London-Amsterdam 2001-2 

Arthur K. Wheelock, Jr., et al. Aelbert Cuyp. Exh. cat.. 
National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, 7 Oct. 
2001-13 Jan. 2002; The National Gallery, London, 

13 Feb-12 May 2002; Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, 

7 June-i Sept. 2002. Washington, DC, 2001. 


World Collectors Annuary. Edited by F. A. van Braam. 

47 vols. Delft, 1946/49-1996/97. 

Welcker 1933 

Clara J. Welcker. Hendrick Avercamp, 1585-1634 ...en 
BarentAvercamp, 1612-1679, “Schilders totCampen.” 
Zwolle, 1933. 

Welcker and Hensbroek-van der Poel 1979 

Clara J. Welcker. Hendrick Avercamp 1585-16340 ...en 
BarentAvercamp, “Schilders tot Campen.” Revised 
edition of Welcker 1933 by D. J. Hensbroek-van der 
Poel. Doornspijk, 1979. 

Weltkunst 1950 

“Frans Jansz. Post.” Weltkunst 20, no. 10 (1950): 6. 
Weltkunst 1974 

New House Galleries advertisement. Weltkunst 44, 
no. 20 (15 Oct. 1974): 1623, ill. 


Westermann 1996 

Mari'et Westermann. Art of the Dutch Republic, 
1585-1/00. London, 1996. 

Wheelock 1977 

Arthur K. Wheelock, Jr. Perspective, Optics, and Delft 
Artists around 1650. PhD diss.. Harvard University, 
1973. New York, 1977. 

Wheelock Online 

Arthur K. Wheelock, Jr. “Ambrosius Bosschaert 
/Bouquet of Flowers in a Glass Vase/1621” In Dutch 
Paintings of the Seventeenth Century, accessed 26 May 
2014, NGA Online Editions, 
/collection/art object/94743. 

Whitehead 1979 

P. J. P. Whitehead. “Georg Markgraf and Brazilian 
Zoology.” In Van den Boogaart, Hoetink, and 
Whitehead 1979, pp. 424-71. 

Whitehead-Boeseman 1989 

P. J. P. Whitehead and M. Boeseman. A Portrait of 
Dutch 17th-Century Brazil: Animals, Plants, and People by 
the Artists ofjohan Maurits ofNassau. Amsterdam and 
New York, 1989. 

Williamstown-Sarasota 1994-95 

Laurie B. Harwood. A Golden Harvest: Paintings by 
Adam Pynacker. Exh. cat.. Sterling and Francine Clark 
Art Institute, Williamstown, MA, 23 July-11 Sept. 
1994; John and Mable Ringling Museum, Sarasota, 
FL, 12 Oct. 1994-1 Jan. 1995. Williamstown, MA, 1994. 

Van der Willigen and Meijer 2003 
Adriaan van der Willigen and Fred G. Meijer. 

A Dictionary of Dutch and Flemish Still-life Painters 
Workingin Oils, 1525-1/25. Leiden, 2003. 

Wilson 1992 

William Wilson. “Burghers with Everything: The 
Lure of Dutch Paintings.” Los Angeles Times, 3 Nov. 
1992, Fi. 

Wittstock 2008 

Olaf Wittstock. Philanthrop undKunstunternehmer.Der 
HildesheimerDomherr Johann Friedrich Moritz von 
Brabeck (1/42-1814). Quellen und Studien zur 
Geschichte und Kunst im Bistum Hildesheim 8, ed. 
Michael Brandt and Thoms Scharf-Wrede. 
Regensburg, 2008. 

Von Wurzbach 1906-11 

Alfred von Wurzbach. NiederlandischesKunstler- 
Lexikon _3 vols. Vienna and Leipzig, 1906-11. 


“Zomertentoonstelling 1955” 

“Zomertentoonstelling 1955.” Bulletin Museum 
Boijmans 5, no. 1 (Mar. 1954): 103-4, fig- 22. 

Zurich 1953 

Hollander des 17.Jahrhunderts. Exh. cat., Kunsthaus, 
Zurich, 4 N0V.-20 Dec. 1953. Zurich, 1953. 



P. 33: fig. 1.1 Photo courtesy of the Rijksmuseum, 

P. 33: fig. 1.2 Photo courtesy of the Teylers Museum, 
Haarlem, The Netherlands 

P. 39: fig. 2.1 Image courtesy Wikimedia Commons 

P. 39: fig. 2.2 Photo courtesy Amsterdam Museum 

P. 49: fig. 4.1 Photo courtesy Mauritshuis, The Hague 

P. 49: fig. 4.2 Photo courtesy Rijksmuseum, 

P. 57: fig. 5.1 Photo © Cincinnati Art Museum, Ohio / 
Bridgeman Images 

P. 79: fig. 10.1 Photo © Museum Associates / LACMA 

P. 79: fig. 10.2 Photo courtesy Rijksmuseum, 

P. 93: fig. 13.1 Photo © Museum Associates / LACMA 

P. 93: fig. 13.2 Photo © 2003 The Colonial 
Williamsburg Foundation 

P. 99: fig. 14.1 Photo © Museum Associates / LACMA 
by Amy L. Walsh 

P. 99: fig. 14.2 Photo courtesy The Museum of Fine 
Arts, Houston 

P. 99: fig. 14.3 Photo courtesy Getty Research 
Institute, Los Angeles 

P. 113: fig. 17.3 Photo courtesy Dordrechts Museum, 

P. 121: fig. 18.1 Image courtesy of Sotheby’s 

P. 121: fig. 18.2 Photo courtesy Rijksmuseum, 

P. 121: fig. 18.3 Photo © Collection RKD-Nederlands 
Instituut voor Kunstgeschiedinis, The Hague 

P. 127: fig. 19.1 Photo courtesy Teylers Museum, 

The Netherlands 

P. 147: fig. 23.1 Photo © The Trustees of the British 

P. 147: fig. 23.2 Photo © John Lee / The National 
Museum of Denmark 

P. 153: fig. 24.1 Photo courtesy Rijksmuseum, 

P. 153: fig. 24.2 Photo courtesy Fries Museum, 

P. 159: fig. 25.1 Photo © Allen Phillips / Wadsworth 

P. 173: fig. 28.1 Photo © Museum Associates / LACMA 

P. 173: fig. 28.2 Image © 2016 The Barnes Foundation 

P. 179: fig. 29.1 Photo courtesy the Cultural Heritage 
Agency, Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, 
The Netherlands 

P. 185: fig. 30.1 Photo courtesy Getty Research 
Institute, Los Angeles 

P. 185: fig. 30.2 Photo © bpk, Berlin / Klassik Stiftung, 
Weimar / Art Resource, NY 

P. 199: fig. 33.1 Photo © Musees de Strasbourg 

P. 205: fig. 34.1 Photo © Ashmolean Museum, 
University of Oxford 

P. 205: fig. 34.2 Photo © The Trustees of the British 

P. 211: fig. 35.1 Photo © bpk, Berlin / Bayerische 
Staatsgemaldesammlungen, Munich / Art Resource, 

P. 211: fig. 35.2 Photo courtesy Rijksmuseum, 

P. 213: fig. 35.3 Image courtesy Wikimedia Commons 

P. 221: fig. 36.1 Photo courtesy Rijksmuseum, 



Co-Chairs of the Board 

Elaine R Wynn 
Tony P. Ressler 

Co-Chairs Emeriti 

Andrew Brandon-Gordon 
Terry Semel 

Vice Chairs 

Willow Bay 
Robert Kotick 


William H. Ahmanson 
Wallis Annenberg 
Mark Attanasio 
Ambassador Nicole Avant 
Ambassador Colleen Bell 
Dr. Rebecka Belldegrun 
Allison Berg 
Nicolas Berggruen 
David C. Bohnett 
Suzanne Deal Booth 
Andrew Brandon-Gordon 
Troy Carter 

Eva Chow 
Ann Colgin 
Janet Crown 
Kelvin Davis 
Kelly Day 

Joshua S. Friedman 
Gabriela Garza 
Thelma Golden 
Tom Gores 
Caroline Grainge 
Mellody Hobson 
Victoria Jackson 
Suzanne Kayne 
Lyn Davis Lear 
Michael Lynton 
Richard Merkin M. D. 
Wendy Stark Morrissey 
Jane Nathanson 
Peter Norton 
Geoff Palmer 
Viveca Paulin-Ferrell 
Janet Dreisen Rappaport 
Carter Reum 
Robbie Robinson 
Steven F. Roth 


Hilda L. Solis, Supervisor ; FirstDistrict 
Mark Ridley-Thomas, Supervisor ; 

Second District 

Sheila Kuehl, Supervisor ; Third District 
Janice Hahn, Supervisor ; Fourth District 
Kathryn Barger, Supervisor ; Fifth District 

Carole Bayer Sager 
Ryan Seacrest 
Florence Sloan 
Eric Smidt 
Michael G. Smooke 
Jonathan D. Sokoloff 
Steve Tisch 
Casey Wasserman 
Dasha Zhukova 
Ann Ziff 

Life Trustees 

Ambassador Frank E. Baxter 

Daniel N. Belin 

Donald L. Bren 

Eli Broad 

Robert A. Day 

Camilla Chandler Frost 

Julian Ganz, Jr. 

Robert F. Maguire III 
William A. Mingst 
Lynda Resnick 
Terry Semel 
Sandra W. Terner 
Walter L. Weisman